Global and Seasonal thread summary and continuation

More mindless ramblings from Wakefield:

Fail because of no frost? Where did you get that one? Crop plants fail due to frost. The longer the growing season, the better the crop production.

Wakefield now shows that in addition to all the other areas of science that he has absolutely no knowledge about he doesn't know anything about plants too. Is there anything in the whole field of science that you could have an honest discussion about without wandering into your world of nonsense, lies and distortions? Somehow I doubt it.

Scientists predict that average temperatures could increase by two degrees centigrade over the next 50 years. This would push temperate growing zones progressively more north. Mr Thornton-Wood explained that although those two degrees may seem like a minor change, they could have a significant impact on growing conditions for all types of plants. Indeed, in parts of Europe, some fruits and plants require frost early in the season in order to grow properly.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=187551&sectio…

Keep it up Wakefield, you are batting zero for a very large number in your ignorance about science, typical for a dishonest denier.

back in 2000 he [Viner] predicted the UK to be show free in 8 years. Richard #361

Oh, and I will find the 8 year quote. Richard # 401

This, of course, was never produced. Not that this deters you from making the same idiotic argument again:

The snow free claim by the Met Office shows that their predictions, based on computer models, is wrong. That was the point. Their computer models can't predict anything. #498

Now you're reduced to recycling the same argument on which you've already been refuted. Richard your delusions are boundless.

Richard, you don't understand Mandas's argument, do you?

If, as many scientists are now claiming, we are heading back into a 1700's style cold period for the next 30 plus years, would reverse the trend seen in the past 100 years.

The scientists from your link?

I'll repeat my question yet again: Do you agree with all of the ones listed?

I know you won't answer. That's not the point anymore.

If I [email Weaver] and report back I will just be callled a liar.

Only if you lie.

Richard:

Some part of you realizes that you are an objective of ridicule and contempt for good reason. I know it. There is no way you are completely oblivious to this fact. Its impossible. You would have to have Aspbergers or some similar condition not to see it.

I know you won't answer to me but at least answer to yourself: Why do you persist in this absurdity? Pure pride? Somehow you think your arguments are not absurd as long as you never admit it? Somehow a revealing and damning question loses its potency as long as you never answer it?

You are fascinating to observe; I'll admit that. Far more than myself I am sure.

Wakefield now shows that in addition to all the other areas of science that he has absolutely no knowledge about he doesn't know anything about plants too.

Qian, B., Zhang, X., Chen, K., Feng, Y. and O'Brien, T. 2010. Observed long-term trends for agroclimatic conditions in Canada. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 49: 604-618.

"the occurrence of extremely low temperatures has become less frequent during the non-growing season, implying a more favorable climate for overwinter survival,"

"the total numbers of cool days, frost days, and killing-frost days within a growing season have a decreasing trend,"

"crops may also be less vulnerable to cold stress and injury during the growing season."

BTW, bees do much better the mider the winter, who as you know are essential for pollination.

The scientists from your link?

I'll repeat my question yet again: Do you agree with all of the ones listed?

Skip you don't gt it. The point is there is no consensus that the planet is going to heat up in the future as per AGW. Doesn't matter what I think.

You are fascinating to observe; I'll admit that. Far more than myself I am sure.

I'll take that as a complement. And correct, the dogma shown here, the hostile knee jerk reactions, are nothing out of the normal from the True Believers in the AGW faith.

The mindless drivel that pours from Dick's fingers is simply staggering. His error with regard to the evolution and threatened status of polar bears was pointed out to him, so he comes back with a paper on cave bears to try and argue with me, yet the paper agrees with everything I said, and nothing that he said.

A split in a phylogenic tree is exactly that - it is the START of the evolutionary divergence, not the end. Do you really think that one day the bears are all brown, omnivorous bears, then they wake up the next day and low and behold - a white, fully carnivorous polar bear with all that entails? Well, as a wildlife scientist, I am going to tell you unequivocably that isn't the case. But then, it shouldn't take a wildlife scientist or biologist to point out something that would be obvious to a five year old.

As I suggested, the divergence between brown and polar bears BEGAN in the mid pleistocene (100 - 250k BP), which agrees quite nicely with the estimate from your paper. Note I said estimate. Bon et al is a 2008 paper which sampled cave bear DNA, and based the estimate of the differences between cave bears / brown bears and polar bears on a 2007 paper by Saarmu et al. No sequencing of polar bear DNA was conducted as part of the study. But of course, that is all pretty obvious to anyone who actually read the paper and understood it.

More recent studies conducted in 2009/10 put the divergences - for there were more than one - at much more recently; less than 200k BP, as follows:

".....The robust phylogeny and the close position of the subfossil polar bear specimen to the polar/brown bear split offer an ideal opportunity to ultimately settle a time of origin for the polar bear. Our Bayesian analyses with different datasets returned a divergence date for the entire brown bear/polar bear lineage to a mean of less than 500 ky (Fig. 3A; see also Table S2), which is consistent with recent estimates using deeper fossil calibration in the Ursidae (3). Within this clade, we estimated the mean age of the split between the ABC bears and the polar bears to be 152 ky, and the mean age for all polar bears as 134 ky, near the beginning of the Eemian interglacial period and completely in line with the stratigraphically determined age of the Poolepynten subfossil (11). Analyses of an extended dataset of 39 mtDNA control-region sequence fragments from a number of carbon-dated brown bears (26) and modern polar bears, importantly including four from Svalbard, provided comparable, although slightly older (190 ky for the ABC/polar bear split), divergence time estimates (Fig. S5). Although mtDNA capture cannot be excluded to have happened between ABC bears and polar bears, these estimates nevertheless affirm with strong support a very recent divergence of polar bears from brown bears. Even more surprising, the age of the modern polar bear crown group (the clade containing the last common ancestor of all extant members) is estimated to be less than 45 ky, slightly older than the age of the ABC bears (Fig. 3A), a date that is also found with the expanded dataset of control-region sequence fragments (Fig. S5). These estimates suggest a very recent and rapid expansion of modern polar bear populations throughout the Arctic since the Late Pleistocene, perhaps following a climate-related population bottleneck, although data from more modern and Holocene polar bear specimens will be required to establish this....."

(source: Lindqvist et al 2010 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/11/5053.full)

So in future you might want to do a little more reading before offering an opinion on a subject you clearly no nothing about.

Oh, and how about you comment on the more important point about the decline in the polar bear populations (but do some reading first). No? Doesn't agree with your twisted world view? An inconvenient truth?

The point is there is no consensus that the planet is going to heat up in the future as per AGW.

By this logic there is no consensus on anything. There are Ph.Ds who dispute evolution, relativity, and even the roundness of the Earth. One of the greatest scientists of his age--Lord Kelvin--disputed the idea of an ancient earth based on nothing but his own ignorance--in his case of atomic physics.

The *existence* of disagreement does not mean that disagreement is meaningful.

Your statement, of course, is a backhanded admission that you never even read the link. If you had you'd be even more embarrassed.

Doesn't matter what I think.

We might finally have found a point of agreement, although this is in stark contrast to:

Your side will just have the embarrassment of being taken down by a non-scientist. Yeah, I can see how that might hurt -- too bad. Not my fault the entire climate community failed to, or did not want to, see the detailed evidence. -- Richard GAS original thread.

Your own admitted ignorance and irrelevance *now*, Richard, is not a defense against the stupidity or inherent self-defeat of the things you cite. You still cited them.

You've clearly reached the point where you're just flailing, stabbing at anything that might score a "point" in your favor. In a weird way I don't blame you . . . you can't really sink any lower.

skip

Dick is clearly bi-polar or schizophrenic (or the greatest hypocrite I have ever witnessed). Just check out posts 504 and 505.

504 - "...the occurrence of extremely low temperatures has become less frequent during the non-growing season, implying a more favorable climate for overwinter survival"
"...the total numbers of cool days, frost days, and killing-frost days within a growing season have a decreasing trend,"
"...crops may also be less vulnerable to cold stress and injury during the growing season."

505 - "...there is no consensus that the planet is going to heat up in the future as per AGW."

So which is it Dick? Is the planet warming or not? Or both - depending on the point you are trying to prove at the time.

A split in a phylogenic tree is exactly that - it is the START of the evolutionary divergence, not the end.

Of course, in evolution, there is no "end". It also depends upon which species concept you are using. In the phylogentic species concept one only has to have a single gene mutation in an isolate population to make the new species. Others all that counts is reproductive isolation. It seems pretty clear polar bears split through allopatric speciation, cut off from brown bears some time around 200,000 years ago. When did they look like today? Seems clear from the papers, not long after. It's called punctuated equilibrium.

Seems to me with your quote you are agreeing that polar bears are at least 145k years old, long enough to make it through several interglacial periods warmer than today, and they survived.

as for declining:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/21/polar-bears-no-longer-on-thin-ice…

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/06/28/polar-bear-testimo…

http://www.nnsl.com/northern-news-services/stories/papers/sep17_07bear…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/09/the-precarious-state-of-the-u-s-p…

By this logic there is no consensus on anything.

That'a why there is NEVER consensus in science, only evidence.

Mandas, you haev completely missed my entire premise from the begining. Winters are getting less cold, while summers are cooling.

Wakefied, there are more plants than just wheat and barley. I suggest you take an elementary course in botany before showing your ignorance in this area.

Spend time reading up on how plants prepare for winter and how endodormancy is induced by shortened photoperiods resulting in a state in which internal factors prevent growth. Low and subzero temperatures simultaneously release buds from endodormancy and result in buds that are hardened and ecodormant. These buds maintain a hardened resting state ready for proliferation when the conditions become supportive for growth in the spring. Thus without the frost periods the buds will not be as strong and growth ready as they should be.

Why do you keep on showing your ignorance about things which you are so willing to discuss? Do you think that we are even more ignorant of these things than you are?

There is an old saying "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt". We have no doubts about how foolish you are.

I've missed nothing. It's you who have missed everything.

".....That'a why there is NEVER consensus in science, only evidence...."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Evidence is nothing without analysis. That's the core of science. You have to show what your evidence and data suggests. We have been trying to make you understand this for over a 1,000 posts.

So here's your chance to do some science. What does your evidence mean? What is causing the changes you say you have observed? You reckon Tmax is decreasing and Tmin is increasing. Why?

And no - just saying AGW is flawed is NOT an explanation, nor is saying vaguely that it is 'natural variation'. You have to come up with a causal mechanism for your observations. THAT'S what science is all about. Any idiot can plug some numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and produce pretty graphs. But a scientist comes up with an explanation.

So what are you? Idiot or scientist?

And try to use the language of a scientist - or at the very least stop putting spin on your results. This sentence:

".... Winters are getting less cold, while summers are cooling...."

Is unadulterated crap. Watch me rewrite it:

".....Winters are getting warmer, while summers are getting less hot...."

Note that it says EXACTLY the same thing.

Wakefield continues to regurgitate his erroneous conclusions:

Mandas, you haev (sic) completely missed my entire premise from the begining (sic). Winters are getting less cold, while summers are cooling.

You have been shown by numerous posters that this statement is not correct. Only a very few isolated stations have shown no warming, others are definitely warming.

You also make a huge error in your 13 or is it 17 or whatever number of stations in southern Canada which you "studied". You made the grievous error of averaging temperatures. This is not what climate scientists do since it is meaningless. You should be averaging anomalies. You do know what anomalies are don't you? Most deniers don't.

I just can't believe that any rational person would keep on showing how ignorant they are by constantly repeating their nonsense over and over again after being shown that it is wrong.

That'a why there is NEVER consensus in science, only evidence.

And for you such "evidence" can include a link you haven't even read--as long as it says what you want to hear, even if it makes a claim that contradicts you (yet again) as Mandas deftly pointed out.

I can't know for sure that you don't have Aspbergers or are, as Mandas suggests, bipolar, but I'm guessing not.

It might just be that you have a toxic combination of a highly creative mind mixed with superhuman stubbornness. You analyzed your Canada data, swiftly concluded from it that you are a paradigm-shattering genius, and nothing will shake you from this self flattering appraisal.

My advice is try humility, Richard. Its ultimately *easier* on your self esteem. The moment you knighted yourself as the Man Who Took Down AGW was when the self-inflicted misery began.

Mandas, Ian, Blue, Adelady, Chris, Coby, myself and the others are just the messengers, Richard.

I'm back from the wild wifi-less wastelands of West England. What did I miss?

Any Aussies talking about cricket yet?

What did I miss?

You've got some catching up to do, Rip Van Winkle. Wake up and get with the program. Richard's arguments finally convinced everyone.

The keys to scientific understanding are

(1) Define as "authority" and/or "evidence" anything you think vindicates you--all the while maintaining that "appeal to authority means nothing".
(2) Never read a source; its confusing. Just assume it proves you correct.
(3) Don't answer difficult questions; doing so leads to uncomfortable conclusions and discomfiting challenges to the viability of (1) and (2).
(4) Abolish the word "wrong" from one's personal vocabulary.

Wakefied, there are more plants than just wheat and barley. I suggest you take an elementary course in botany before showing your ignorance in this area.

Explain how these plants made it through the MWP and the RWP.

So here's your chance to do some science. What does your evidence mean? What is causing the changes you say you have observed? You reckon Tmax is decreasing and Tmin is increasing. Why?

Natural variation cycles within cycles. Natural factors, natural forcings.

Your side has to show that AGW is a better explanation, with evidence, not models. And that evidence must be discriminatory evidence that cannot have another explanation. AGW doesn't have any. What specific evidence can ONLY be explained by our CO2?

How does AGW explain TMax decreasing when all the models, all the predictions claim it should be increasing?

Note that it says EXACTLY the same thing.

Depends if the glass is half full or half empty.

I suggest you contact those authors where they also claim:

"Like other parts of the world, Canada has not become hotter (no increase in higher quantiles of maximum temperature), but has become less cold."

http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/articles/v380301.pdf

. You should be averaging anomalies. You do know what anomalies are don't you?

False. I did use anomalies. I got a base line average TMax for each station using the years 1961 to 1990. If you read the sql statements you can see where I did that. You do know what sql is don't you?

I'm back from the wild wifi-less wastelands of West England. What did I miss?

Enjoying all that snow and cold the Met Office claimed 10 years ago would be rare?

Have a look at this:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/simulating-random-varia…

Will be moving my blogspot posts to here, superior.

Care to do your magic analysis on this data?

Wakefield, do you honestly (difficult for you I know) believe that any rational person reading this blog believes a word that you say regarding your "Excel games"? You are so dishonest I'd be surprised if your real name is in fact JR Wakefield.

Emeritus professor Garth Paltridge wrote an essay at Tech Central Station entitled "Climate Models and Consensus Science" [2] in which he cautioned against relying too heavily on climate models and stated "we have to get away from simply running models and comparing their final output in some sort of search for a consensus on the results. Consensus is not science. Consensus tends to the politically correct. Consensus is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money."

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Consensus_science

How does AGW explain TMax decreasing when all the models, all the predictions claim it should be increasing?

You have never produced any prediction by "AGW" that precludes the possibility of non-rising Tmax in your data.

Nor will you ever. This is your key delusion, Richard. You think you "found something" and now you're on the make to find somewhere that "AGW" forbids this "something". You will search the rest of your life in futility.

And I see the delusion about another alleged "prediction" is compounding:

back in 2000 he [Viner] predicted the UK to be show free in 8 years. Richard #361

Oh, and I will find the 8 year quote. Richard # 401

The snow free claim by the Met Office shows that their predictions, based on computer models, is wrong. That was the point. Their computer models can't predict anything. #498

Enjoying all that snow and cold the Met Office claimed 10 years ago would be rare? Richard, #524

So, Richard: Where is the "8 year quote" about which we hear so much and see so little?

Richard:

Do you agree with Professor Paltridge's position regarding the role of carbon in affecting climate?

"....So here's your chance to do some science. What does your evidence mean? What is causing the changes you say you have observed? You reckon Tmax is decreasing and Tmin is increasing. Why?
Natural variation cycles within cycles. Natural factors, natural forcings...."

Wow Dick - your stupidity knows no bounds does it? Read my post again, and try to do some science.

I said - quite clearly:

".....And no - just saying AGW is flawed is NOT an explanation, nor is saying vaguely that it is 'natural variation'. You have to come up with a causal mechanism for your observations. THAT'S what science is all about. Any idiot can plug some numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and produce pretty graphs. But a scientist comes up with an explanation......"

So what is your explanation?: "natural variations"

I guess that was extremely predictable and I am not surprised at any level.

It is NOT contingent on us to explain your observations. YOU have made the observations, now you have to explain them. Read this next part VERY carefully.

YOU HAVE MADE SOME OBERVATIONS OF TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS AT A FEW SELECTED MET STATIONS IN CANADA. WHAT IS CAUSING THOSE VARIATIONS?

If you want to claim 'natural variations', you have to show WHICH natural variations, and what the causal relationship is between the forcing mechanism and the changes you have observed.

You reckon you have observed Tmax decreasing and Tmin increasing. Ok - let's just assume for the sake of the argument that you are 100% correct. So..... why is this happening? What is causing it?

Until and unless you can answer this really basic question - which by the way is the HEART of EVERY science paper ever published by ANY science journal (you know - the DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION to the paper which is located after the method and results) - you are just someone who has produced some pretty graphs from some numbers you downloaded from a website.

We have been saying this to you for over 1000 posts. If you think we are lying, take your results to your closest university and speak to a scientist there and have a chat to him/her. I know categorically that you will be told the same thing.

You claim to want a rational debate and to demonstrate that you have made a discovery that has either eluded climate scientists for decades or that they know about and are deliberately covering up. Ok - act rationally. Develop a hypothesis - a REAL hypothesis - for your observations.

Once you have done that, we will have a rational debate about your hypothesis. We will treat it like a REAL science discussion. But so far you have NOTHING worth discussing. Just some graphs that you claim show that Tmax is decreasing and Tmin is increasing.

WHY??????!!!!!!!!!!!!

And here's another tip. You reveal your bias and prejudices when you throw in issues that have NOTHING to do with your research, and which you know NOTHING about. All this crap about polar bears and CO2 being good for plants etc is completely irrelevant to your research, and is better left to people who actually know something about the subjects.

Stick to your findings, produce a causal mechanism and show what the relationship is and how it has produced the findings you have observed, THEN we can have a discussion.

Chris

We can discuss cricket if you like - but there is not much to discuss (much as it pains me).

Just a very good side putting a very mediocre side to the sword.

"Just a very good side putting a very mediocre side to the sword."

Are you still talking cricket here? At least the Aussies have shown good grace in defeat (mostly).

I see there's some confusion above about the randomness of the highest Tmax data. In the last of my Canada Temps posts the important plots in this respect are the Autocorrelation plots and the Spectrum analysis.

The former is essentially a plot of all the correlations between each year's records plotted against lag (distance in years between records). The two horizontal dotted lines show the correlation coefficient of 2.5, anything outside those lines indicates some autocorrelation (correlation between years x years apart). As the plot shows the only correlation is that at 0 year lag (each year is correlated with itself). There is the merest hint of some correlation at around 30 years lag but it is only barely over the line and cannot be regarded as a clear result.

The Spectral plot is a visual representation of a Fourier analysis. The high peak at 0 indicates white noise - randomness in other words. If there was some spectral signal, blue or red noise for example, then there would be distinct peaks further to the centre and/or right of the plot. There isn't, suggesting there is no pattern to the data (not necessarily no trend, just no cycles of any kind around the trend - pendulum or otherwise). This (to me) is quite surprising, it may be interesting to regress highest Tmax against NAO & PDO indices and see whether that shows anything that explains the variance...

Erratum: "at around 30 years lag" should read "20 years"

Chris

Yes - we are talking about cricket. England was just too good, and our bowlers lacked any penetration at all. Back that up with a total inability of the top order to score any runs.... and well, the result was pretty predictable and a fairly good indication of the state of our national team at the moment. But we will be back.

Where is the "8 year quote" about which we hear so much and see so little?

Are you saying the prediction never happened? I have provided the links to it.

Now explain to me how AGW produces cooler summers.

If you want to claim 'natural variations', you have to show WHICH natural variations, and what the causal relationship is between the forcing mechanism and the changes you have observed.

So in your view there cannot be any randomness? Why is random variation not viable?

"....So in your view there cannot be any randomness? Why is random variation not viable?...."

Random variation is just that - random. Are you seriously suggesting that everything you have observed is just random? If so, why are we even having a discussion about this?

But.....you have claimed to have observed a trend. You do know the difference, right?

Trends have causes. What has caused the trend you have observed? Until and unless you can answer this question, your data is meaningless.

WHY??????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Random variation. I have produced a simulation on how that can happen. Just chaotic randomness in various cycles. Or do you expect the planet to be perfectly predicable like a clock?

Now, for the moment, let's take that explanation out. You want to know why.

When gravity was shown to actually be a force pulling on objects, when the planets' orbits were shown to be following the rules of gravity, they did not know why gravity works. Having an observation does not a priori mean you MUST have an explanation why.

Not having a natural "why" is not a licence to invoke the god of the gaps and claim our CO2 is the "why".

So Chris, are you saying that the variation you see is just randomness, and is hence mandas' "why"?

But.....you have claimed to have observed a trend. You do know the difference, right?

Trends have causes. What has caused the trend you have observed? Until and unless you can answer this question, your data is meaningless.

Not so. Ask Chris now, as he seems to verify that randomness has a significant component. And, btw, randoness and chaos can have patterns and direction, that's what fractals are about. The climate is following a fractal like pattern that has a much longer period than our few years of measurements.

Trends have causes. What has caused the trend you have observed? Until and unless you can answer this question, your data is meaningless.

BTW, much of early science was done, observed and measured, without knowing the why for a long time. Mendel is a prime example. Was his data meaningless just because the "why" of his observatons had to wait until the discovery of DNA? Not at all. It was quite meaningfull. By your logic much of science was meaningless until the "why" was discovered.

Dick, I haven't invoked the 'god of the gaps', CO2, the sun, or anything. I haven't made any claims. It is you who have made the observations, and you who has to explain them.

It would appear from your statement about 'random variation' that you have changed your claim about 'summers cooling' and 'winters becoming less cold' etc then? Because - to me and I suggest everyone else here - that suggests a trend. If it was random, it will go up and down with no discernable pattern (after all - I am pretty confident that's what the word 'random' means).

That conflicts with your statements about longer growing seasons and milder winters. And it is completely at odds with your claims about the sun (yes - I remember them). But I guess you are withdrawing those as well now.

However, I like your last sentence:

"....The climate is following a fractal like pattern that has a much longer period than our few years of measurements...."

Its good that you have finally come up with a hypothesis. Thanks for finally answering my (and others) question. It will provide a much better focus for our discussions.

We can now move forward with a detailed discussion of Dick's hypothesis.

My first question (and I haven't had time to look at this in detail, so bear with me - I will have lots more), what sort of timeframe are we talking about?

what sort of timeframe are we talking about?

Not just one, but many of differing periods. Think of waves on the ocean, seemingly chaotic and random, but in fact they are different cycles of motion in specific directions interacting with each other, with random chaos thrown in.

Some of these cycles are just within the atmosphere itself, others from the sun. The sun has steady cycles, but also other cycles with differing periods. These produced the RMP, and the subsequent cool period, then produced the MWP, and the subsequent LIA, and the current warm period, which you have all agreed must be natural from 1800-1975 was from this cycle, the first phase of it. The current continuation of this cycle swamps any forcing CO2 might have.

Further in the past we have other cycles, producing the ice ages and the interglacial periods.

All part of the random variation with appearent direction.

If it was random, it will go up and down with no discernable pattern (after all - I am pretty confident that's what the word 'random' means).

Random can have the appearance of direction if the cycles are longer than what we have been measuring. For example, with cyclic variation with a 50 year period, caused by a fractal like pattern, it would appear to be directional with a time frame of only 100 years. But look at it over 1000 years and that cycle pattern will appear more random and flat trended.

What are experiencing at any given time is the interaction of all these cycles and randomness. My experiment with such cycles and randomness shows how it can work: http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com. I'd like to take this further adding more of what I think is going on. But it's a good start.

Oh - just a few more teensy questions.

Over at the previous thread, you started off by saying that "unknown" natural forcing mechanisms were causing your observed changes. If I may quote:

".....Someday a natural mechanism will be shown to be the cause of this "warming" and then your faith will come crashing down...."

You obviously then had an epithany, and determined that the sun was driving all the changes. You were absolutely convinced of this, and made numerous references to it:

"....Total solar irradiance has increased up to 2000, higher now even though flat since 2000 than it was in 1900. So since the solar irradiance was lower in 1900 than today, and the average increased from 1900 to today then the current increase will still have a significant solar component now than it did in 1900....."

"....So, Coby, you are going to ignore Borchert's paper. You wanted a mechanism from me, he provides it. The denialism will be on your side if you ignore this scientific paper that shows no role for CO2. Deal with it...."

"....I accept the evidence, and I have show two new papers that shows the sun has significant effects on the climate (one directly negates CO2), and their prediction is we are heading to cooler times, regardless of CO2. But seems that no one here is willing to even consider this as a possible explanation for this warming, even though they are science papers....."

(in response to this suggestion) If global warming was driven by the sun, we should see summer warming faster than winter. ".....Not true. He is missing the fact that winds and frontal systems attempt to even out the planet's temperature from the hotter regions to the colder regions. Since there is an upper ceiling on how hot the planet can get, it means that the winters would have to warm more beause the summers cannot get any hotter. Convection and systems circulation moves that summer air into the colder regions (summer in the south means winter in the north)....."

From those quotes we can have no doubt - you believed, and had papers to support your view - that the changes you have observed to Canadian Tmax and Tmin were caused by changes in solar irradiance.

So, given that you were convinced that the sun was such a significant influence driving the changes you have observed, and that '...I accept the evidence...', what changed your mind? Why do you now 'reject the evidence'?

And will you admit your earlier error?

Wakefield, wake up you are dreaming. Do you believe in the first law of thermodynamics? The global energy content (note that is a much more reliable parameter to discuss than air temperature) is increasing. How does your "randomness" account for increasing energy?

You are being very unscientific in your discussions. How on earth can a small set of stations (ones you probably cherry picked) have any status in concluding that there is no AGW? You do know what the G in AGW stands for don't you? It does not stand for "a few cherry picked stations which support my stupid hypothesis".

You are so far off the mark with just about everything you write about. You know next to nothing but you keep on producing graph after useless graph. You have deep seated problems. Everyone who is knowledgeable in this area shows where you are wrong (wrong is hardly the word for something so diametrically opposed to scientific reality) that one wonders about your mental health.

Are you so stubborn and lacking in ability in other areas of your life? You are a sad example of an AGW denier. At least others move onto greener pastures when they have been shown to be wrong instead of continually showing everyone their stupidity and lack of scientific ability.

Why Wakefield is a denier and not a skeptic:

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/guide-for-dealing-with-the-de…

Are you saying the [8 year] prediction never happened? I have provided the links to it.

I am.

You live in a fantasy world. You produced "quotes". But--and this is key Richard--they did *not* support your claim. This is because you mindlessly link things you do not read. (Relying on Snowman as a backup man did not help your cause.)

Repeat, Richard: Your "8 year" quote is a fantasy, a delusional concoction of your irrational mind.

Now explain to me how AGW produces cooler summers.

Straw man. I never said AGW "produces cooler summers." I said *even assuming Canadian* summers in your select stations have gotten "cooler", it has *nothing*--repeat, *nothing* to do with the overall Anthropogenic *Global* (as Ian points out)Warming hypothesis.

One more thing, Richard, since you're reading my posts:

When would you like to resume a discussion of. . . oh, whats his name . . . . let me think . . . oh yeah!

Benjamin Laken?

Hoping to forget that one, weren't you?

I probably have my own personality defect in all this: sadistically torturing a hack with questions he cannot answer because he cannot face them, but we all have our vices.

"......which you have all agreed must be natural from 1800-1975 was from this cycle, the first phase of it. The current continuation of this cycle swamps any forcing CO2 might have......"

Ummmmm no. Warming in the first half of the 20th century was largely because of changes to solar irradiance, which was all agree is natural. No-one disputes that or has ever disputed that. It's even stated as such in the IPCC reports.

However, as everyone also knows, for the second half of the century TSI has been virtually flat - even decreasing slightly, and obviously CAN'T swamp any CO2 forcing, because - as you have observed - mean temperatures are increasing.

So try again.

".......Random can have the appearance of direction if the cycles are longer than what we have been measuring. For example, with cyclic variation with a 50 year period, caused by a fractal like pattern......"

And no again. You do know the difference between "random" and "cyclical" and "patterns", right?

In case you don't - and from your claims that would appear to be the case - "random" means without cycles or patterns.

Try again.

Dick (521) "....Your side has to show that AGW is a better explanation, with evidence, not models. And that evidence must be discriminatory evidence that cannot have another explanation....."

Dick (537) "....Random variation. I have produced a simulation on how that can happen. Just chaotic randomness in various cycles...."

So let me get this straight. Proponents of AGW are not permitted to use models and can allow no alternate explanations for their theories, but apparently you can?

Does the phrase, "fucking hypocrite", mean anything to you?

So, given that you were convinced that the sun was such a significant influence driving the changes you have observed, and that '...I accept the evidence...', what changed your mind? Why do you now 'reject the evidence'?

Of course, one is always allowed to change views when new evidence comes to light. My random simulation seems to suggest that there is pure random fluctuations, as well as cyclic randomness. The sun would be a significant supplier of the cyclic changes with many periods. So yes, the sun is the major contributor of the forcing of the climate. Everything else would be secondary.

Ian your hatred for me is so strong you are no longer objective. I have CLEARLY stated why I picked the stations I did. I will spell it out again in the hopes it MIGHT finally sink in.

THEY HAVE THE LONGEST CONTINUOUS RECORDSET!!!

Now do you understand?

Straw man. I never said AGW "produces cooler summers." I said *even assuming Canadian* summers in your select stations have gotten "cooler", it has *nothing*--repeat, *nothing* to do with the overall Anthropogenic *Global* (as Ian points out)Warming hypothesis.

Oh, I see, AGW is responsible for the increase in TMin, but not for the decrease in TMax. So what is driving TMax down then, over riding the forcing of CO2?

However, as everyone also knows, for the second half of the century TSI has been virtually flat - even decreasing slightly, and obviously CAN'T swamp any CO2 forcing, because - as you have observed - mean temperatures are increasing.

Since TMean is just the difference between the daily TMax and TMin (TMean is not a measurement), and since that increase is because TMin is increasing faster than TMax is dropping, then which of the two is this forcing from CO2 changing? Both, just TMax or just TMin? If only one, what is driving the other?

In case you don't - and from your claims that would appear to be the case - "random" means without cycles or patterns.

Read up on fractals. Random also means we are unable to deturmine the outcome because there are too many parameters. Don't think about cards or dice. Far too simple. Have a look at the cloud pattern on Jupiter. Patters, and cycles, all from random chaos with the sun as the energy input (and maybe a little from its own).

Thought I'd check for myself about Canada's temperatures.

Well, well, well. 2010 Jan - Nov is the hottest on record. But I did like this display on seasonal temperatures. Summers are not getting cooler overall (for all I know they may be in a few locations) but check out the winter and spring anomalies from 1998 onwards!

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=en&n=A96E94CA-1

Wakefield continues with his regurgitated garbage:

Since TMean is just the difference between the daily TMax and TMin (TMean is not a measurement), and since that increase is because TMin is increasing faster than TMax is dropping, then which of the two is this forcing from CO2 changing? Both, just TMax or just TMin? If only one, what is driving the other?

Wakefield, when are you going to get it through your thick skull that 13 stations in a small part of Canada is not a reflection of what is happening globally? There are numerous papers which have been linked in the past 1000+ posts which have shown your "conclusions," more likely "delusions" are not valid globally.

I hate people like you who are dishonest, incapable of learning, slander and libel honest scientists etc. You are a despicable person in your continuing distortion of what is happening to climate globally. You have posted endlessly on rubbish which you seem to think disproves the science behind human induced global warming. How many times and how many intelligent and knowledgeable people will have to tell you this before you join the rational part of the human community?

This nonsense has gone on long enough.

So let me get this straight. Proponents of AGW are not permitted to use models and can allow no alternate explanations for their theories, but apparently you can?

If you read that post carefully, I make no such claim. I never said this was a climate model. I said it was an example of what random variation couplied with various cycles would look like. It's not a model, it's an experiment with randomness which has a striking resemblance to what TMax does. Makes one wonder how much randomness plays in the temps. I think a lot.

There is more than enough literature on climate models, general circulation models, that shows they leave much to be desired. They can't even predict the past.

More hilarity from Wakefield:

They can't even predict the past.

Are you having a bad day or are you just showing your normal level of stupidity?

Models are "trained" on the past. You do understand how models are constructed don't you? Sorry, the obvious answer to that question is "no" since you are so scientifically challenged.

"Union of Concerned Scientistsâ (UCS) Climate Choices web site (published in 2006) says: âhere in the Northeast, the climate is changing. Records show that spring is arriving earlier, summers are growing hotter, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. "

Yet, that is not what is happening. Take note of the graphs:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/union-of-concerned-scientists-unw…

Models are "trained" on the past.

I was hoping you would take the bait.

Paper checking climate models to past climate, they fail:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-jus…

Coby, why are you allowing Wakefield to spam denier nonsense from sites like wattsuphisbutt? This is a science blog and such nonsense should not be allowed.

Here is what experts in the field (as opposed to junk scientists) have to say about an earlier paper by the same authors:

With that in mind, I now turn to the latest paper that is getting the inactivists excited by Demetris Koutsoyiannis and colleagues. There are very clearly two parts to this paper â the first is a poor summary of the practice of climate modelling â touching all the recent contrarian talking points (global cooling, Douglass et al, Karl Popper etc.) but is not worth dealing with in detail (the reviewers of the paper include Willie Soon, Pat Frank and Larry Gould (of Monckton/APS fame) â so no guessing needed for where they get their misconceptions).

I would be very surprised to find that the paper Wakefield referred to via a denier site is not of the same quality.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testin…

'Coby, why are you allowing Wakefield to spam denier nonsense...' demands Ian Forrester.

It's an odd question from someone who spends his entire life prowling the internet like the Witchfinder General, looking for climate heretics to denounce. Just think, Ian, how dull your existence would be without Richard.

Coby, why are you allowing [Ian] to spam [AGW] nonsense from sites like [realclimte]? This is a science blog and such nonsense should not be allowed.

RC is a front for Hansen, paid by the Goracle and Environmental Media Services, a radical left wing lobby group who's income comes from litigating environmental cases. They lie, misrepresent and routinely censor posts.

It does not surpise me that Ian has swallowed RC'c coolaid.

Ian, going to acknowledge that you were wrong and I did use anomalies? Didn't think so.

Just think, Ian, how dull your existence would be without Richard.

As dull as yours is in any event?

Oh, I see, AGW is responsible for the increase in TMin, but not for the decrease in TMax.

Yes, Richard, its entirely possible. The explanation for you observations in your regionally limited Canadian dataset within an overal AGW signal is simple, obvious, even dreary.

But you think you're Albert Einstein and you won't let yourself face this painfully mundane fact.

Take note of the graphs:

The same thing you asked us to do once when *your graphs never existed*, Richard. Fool me twice shame on me.

Quoting Anthony Watts again I see, which reminds me: Isn' that where you first read about . . . . Benjamin Laken??

So, Richard, what do you think of Benjamin Laken these days?

I'm enjoying this too much. I admit it. I have a problem but I cannot stop myself.

Wakefield shows once again that he does not understand the difference between real science (real climate) and junk science (wattsuphisbutt).

As for whether you used anomalies or not your description of your "research methods" is so juvenile and incomprehensible that it is not surprising that people may be mistaken in what you do. If you submitted your "Excel games" as a high school project it would be thrown back at you and you would be told to rewrite it in intelligible sentences. Your graphs are ridiculous, you have no description on the axes as to what they represent. No wonder you come to wrong conclusions when your work is so muddled and full of sloppiness.

Remember that a few stations in southern Canada do not represent the whole of the globe, why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Also you have been shown that other stations in Canada do not conform to your "hypothesis".

Yes, Richard, its entirely possible. The explanation for you observations in your regionally limited Canadian dataset within an overal AGW signal is simple, obvious, even dreary.

Then it's also quite possible that CO2 isn't responsble for either.

As for the graphs on WUWT, they shows flat temperatures since 1900 for the east coast of the US. Max and min.

RC is real science, ROTHL!!! In your dreams.

Ian, only your inablity to read makes my presentations look sloppy. I describe what each graph represents. The anomaly procedure was spelled out in the text and sql statements, which looks like you can't read. As expected you will not apologize, as expected. I thougt you were finished here?

Re Laken, Skip I have no idea why you want my comment on his work. It's evidence that shows there is more going on in the climate than just the sun, co2 or even random variation. So what?

I've gone through his site, I've read his posts at WUWT. What is your point?

It's [Laken] evidence that shows there is more going on in the climate than just the sun, co2 or even random variation. So what? -- Richard backtracking, blatantly, pathetically, now.

What [the Laken article] does show is your blind faith that ONLY CO2 changes the climate, has major effects on climate, is false. -- Richard Old GAS thread, chest beating then #352

There has been no long term trend in the rate of Cosmic ray flux over the last several decades, and consequently, this observation does not support ideas that Cosmic rays are responsible for recent global warming. --Benjamin Laken on his own work

Laken does *not* say that AGW believers have "blind faith that only CO2 changes climate". (That's your delusion, Richard, not his.)

Laken does *not* deny that "CO2 has major effects climate." That's you inventing an interpretation of a work you did not read. But of course you do this all the time so no surprise there.

He specifically *refutes* the idea that CRF explains recent warming.

Richard, you were gullible enough to believe dipshit Watts without even investigating his source. It shows you are a mindless believer in Watts and anything else that you think supports your amateurish position. When you make accusations of "dogma" Richard, its always an empty assertion devoid of evidence. When I accuse you of it, I document it.

That's the key difference between us, Richard. You will not or cannot distinguish the difference between objective reality and your personal preference.

The Laken debacle is an epic embarrassment to you that you are desperately trying to forget and deny, but you can't.

Wakefield shows his ignorance over and over again. Let this be a lesson to anyone who believes in self teaching. It is a losing proposition, it will turn out idiots like Wakefield who is ignorant of so many things. He thinks he is an expert because he is "self taught." What a joke.

Well it looks as though Dick has - once again - predictably demonstrated his total inability to comprehend even the most basic scientific concepts. Its good he now has a hypothesis - that the climate is undergoing random variations - but of course, his hypothesis is so flawed it is barely worth discussing. Then there are all the other politically motivated claims which lack evidence, so where do you start?

So to summarise.

Dick took some data from a few selected met stations in southern Canada, determined (accurately or otherwise) that Tmax was staying flat or falling slightly, Tmin was increasing significantly, and on that basis declared that "if this is happening in Canada it must be happening in the rest of the world" and declared the theory of AGW to be deceased.

Interestingly, although Dick had NOT checked data from other parts of the world (Australia for example - since I am from there), he proclaimed that he had a friend who was getting the data for him (no such friend has yet arisen - but I offered to give him the data and he declined). Of course, this meant that any prediction of what was happening in the rest of the world was pure supposition totally devoid of any evidence. This lack of evidence was no barrier to Dick forcefully expressing his opinion on the issue.

Dick was also adamant that the cause of the trends he observed was an 'unknown natural forcing mechanism'. Interestingly, he later changed this opinion to believe that the driving force behind his observations was the sun. This was unequivocal, because he had the evidence, and had science papers proving it and how dare we question them. Of course, he now believes there is NO trend to his observationss, and that they are purely random variations occuring in a long term or cyclical or fractal pattern. Despite the strange dissonance between "random", "cyclical", and "patterns", he has not stated why he now rejects the earlier evidence that he found so persuasive. I will take a leaf out of Dick's book here, and tell him that he should write to the authors and publications concerned with his criticisms of the works, because unless he does that his criticism means nothing. But could you at least tell us please Dick. Why do you reject the evidence you previously accepted.

I know you have said (in response to my earlier question in this regard): "...Of course, one is always allowed to change views when new evidence comes to light...."

So, given that you were convinced that the sun was such a significant influence driving the changes you have observed, and that '...I accept the evidence...', what changed your mind? Why do you now 'reject the evidence'? What is the "new evidence" that has come to light? Surely not your simulations? I hope it is actual data.

I would also be interested to know how Dick's hypothesis takes into account many of the other observations related to climate. CO2 is of course a favourite bogeyman of the average denialist, yet CO2 has undeniable radiation absorption properties. Given that CO2 IS increasing, why is there no apparent CO2 signal in Dick's hypothesis? There should be. Every other scientist - including those who are not proponents of catastrophic climate change such as Lindzen - accept that CO2 is a current driver of climate. I would like Dick to explain why he thinks they are wrong.

We also know, from observations, that the Earth's energy budget has been increasing, so you would think this would have some effect on climate. I would be interested to know how Dick's hypothesis deals with that.

Of course, Dick's hypothesis means that EVERY paper that has ever been written recently suggesting an alternative explanation for CO2 driven climate change (cosmic ray flux for example - which Dick did link to at one stage; sunspots; etc) must be wrong. I would love to hear his explanation for this.

I also assume that, given that Dick now has a workable hypothesis, he will now turn this into a paper and submit it for publication. At least Dick is not one of these who believes the peer review process is broken - he is a published author himself! So what about it Dick? Or do you think you might try and get some other data (say from Australia, or South America, or Africa etc) to see if your hypothesis holds true for places other than your tiny corner of the world? That would be my suggestion - but what would I know?

'I have a problem but I cannot stop myself,' concedes Skip.

For once something we agree on.

Every other scientist - including those who are not proponents of catastrophic climate change such as Lindzen - accept that CO2 is a current driver of climate. I would like Dick to explain why he thinks they are wrong. Mandas above.

So is another one he recently cited, although he has yet to answer this question:

Do you agree with Professor Paltridge's position regarding the role of carbon in affecting climate? Skip #528

Nor, I expect, will we receive one.

It is what it is, Snowman.

Just remember its as fun to expose your hypocrisy and ignorance as Richard's.

Speaking of ignorance, Skip, you really must do something to improve your grasp of English grammar. I see, for example, that you have yet to make progress in understanding the difference between it's and its. Disappointing.

Disappointing you doesn't bother me.

'Disappointing you doesn't bother me.'

Nor should it. But such a woeful failure to understand even rudimentary English grammar is, surely, a little surprising in a college 'professor'. What on earth must your students think?

I mentioned Richard Lindzen in my previous post - and he is a very interesting case in point here.

Those of you who have been following this debate for some time will recall that Dick was full of hope that Lindzen's testimony before Congress on 17 November would reveal AGW as a scam. He even provided a link to Lindzen's testimony.

Unfortunately for Dick, what Lindzen really said was this:

"....The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to....."

Now, Dick had been saying that CO2 played NO part in the warming trend he had observed. And he HAD observed a trend, and repeatedly said so - although he initially said it was natural and later said it was the sun, as per:

"....Oh dear, another paper that shows the sun caused this warm trend...." (18 November)

This obviously raised a question in my mind, because Lindzen was disagreeing with Dick's position. But interestingly enough, when questioned about it, Dick AGREED with Lindzen (ie that CO2 was playing a part in the warming trend).

Now of course, Dick is saying there is NO trend, with the obvious implication that neither the sun or CO2 can be playing a part. So Dick, can you tell us why Lindzen is wrong please?

And finally, in 18 November last year, NOAA issued this statement:

".....2010 is set to be the warmest on record....."

And despite Dick having (at that time) thought he had observed a warming trend in Canada (but had no evidence from anywhere else in the world, he proclaimed:

".....Since the year is not over yet, I find that rather optimistic, and unrealistic, eventually to be shown false. It won't be the warmest on record, not even close....."

I wonder what he thinks now, especially given that NASA has come out and said it WAS the warmest year on record.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/nasa-2010-meteorological-… (press release - apologies)

So Dick, is NASA wrong or were you wrong? If you think the former, what is your evidence? If you think the latter - will you apologise for your earlier statement?

yet CO2 has undeniable radiation absorption properties. Given that CO2 IS increasing, why is there no apparent CO2 signal in Dick's hypothesis? There should be. Every other scientist - including those who are not proponents of catastrophic climate change such as Lindzen - accept that CO2 is a current driver of climate. I would like Dick to explain why he thinks they are wrong.

And that increase in CO2 is changing what in the climate? What is changing now, not future speculation.

We also know, from observations, that the Earth's energy budget has been increasing, so you would think this would have some effect on climate. I would be interested to know how Dick's hypothesis deals with that.

First the energy balance of the planet is not solved.

Second, what you are refering to is that the planet is RETURNING to a more normal state as it emerges from the LIA. Warmer climate is normal, not cold. Warmer is also better that colder.

Of course, Dick's hypothesis means that EVERY paper that has ever been written recently suggesting an alternative explanation for CO2 driven climate change (cosmic ray flux for example - which Dick did link to at one stage; sunspots; etc) must be wrong. I would love to hear his explanation for this.

You don't think any other factors are at play in the last 30 years except CO2.

Of course I intend to look at other locations. Funny though tat you don't just supply your data, you have to attach conditions on its release.

If you think that CO2 is the cause, and potentially bad, do you agree with David Shearman, Assessor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report, on what should be done about it?

Re: Paltridge. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N40/C2.php

Now of course, Dick is saying there is NO trend, with the obvious implication that neither the sun or CO2 can be playing a part. So Dick, can you tell us why Lindzen is wrong please?

You certainly put interesting spins on the truth. As far as Lindzen is concerned, CO2 may not play ANY role at all, hence his notation of " how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to" That how much could ery likely be zero if the solar scientists are right and weare heading into 20-30 years of cooling because of the drop in the sun's output. Speaking of which, when was the sun not part of nature and not part of the natural climate drives?

I have been consistent, there is no evidence increased CO2 has changed anything in the climate. Even if there was some heat retention due to the more CO2 (which is not linear, more CO2 means less increased heat absorbtion), it is being swamped by other natural factors.

I wonder what he thinks now, especially given that NASA has come out and said it WAS the warmest year on record.

If that comes from Hansen, which I think it was, then I do not trust anything that radical socialist says. I'll be downloading the data when I'm finished another project.

The question has to be turned about, do YOU agree with Lindzen?

".....Second, what you are refering to is that the planet is RETURNING to a more normal state as it emerges from the LIA. Warmer climate is normal, not cold. Warmer is also better that colder....."

That has to be the most spectacularly stupid thing I have ever read. There is no such thing as 'normal' climate. But of course, you - and your random natural variations - agree. A system that goes though random unexplanable changes can have NO normal state. And warmer is better for who? Just because you live in a frigid hole doesn't mean everyone does.

"....You don't think any other factors are at play in the last 30 years except CO2..."

And you got that from where? I can't remember ever saying it. And why does it matter what I think. We are discussing what YOU think here.

"....Of course I intend to look at other locations...."

You do? So are you admitting that you have formulated your hypothesis purely on the basis of a limited sample which probably is not representative of the population. That's a pretty damning admission, and demonstrates that your conclusions and criticisms of other works completely lack any degree of evidence or credibility. I would strongly suggest you go away and do a hell of a lot more work. Then when you have something which is worth discussing - because you just admitted you don't have that yet - come back and we can continue. An ETHICAL scientist would describe your current findings as preliminary, and requiring further investigation before any definitive conclusions could be drawn. Slightly different to your own assertions don't you think?

"....Funny though tat you don't just supply your data, you have to attach conditions on its release....."

Its not my data - its the Australian BOM's data. I just offered to provide the access you said your mythical 'friend' was providing for you (and on 12 November you said you were emailing him/her - what was the response please?). And do you mean the condition about asking you to admit that you are wrong if the data shows that you are wrong? Why is that a problem for you?

"....If you think that CO2 is the cause, and potentially bad, do you agree with David Shearman, Assessor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report, on what should be done about it?....."

I have no idea what he says should be done about it, and I don't particularly care. Stop trying to redirect the discussion. We are discussing your work here; what your observations suggest and why you think that alternative explanations are wrong. What I think about someone else's opinion is completely irrelevant.

So how about you attempt to address my questions regarding your hypothesis now, instead of just making assertions about my opinions.

".....Even if there was some heat retention due to the more CO2 (which is not linear, more CO2 means less increased heat absorbtion), it is being swamped by other natural factors....."

And they are????

And once again, it doesn't matter whether or not I agree or disagree with Lindzen. We are discussing your hypothesis here, not my opinions.

Try and focus on the discussion at hand and stop trying to redirect.

A mindless cut and paste of a link is not an answer, Richard.

Its a dodge and a silent admission that you cited Paltridge without reading him, don't understand his position, and have no idea what in all hell you're talking about.

Well Dick,

You may recall that coby said up front that he wanted everyone to be nice, and you have said that you want a discussion on the science, and that the only thing that matters is the evidence.

Whilst that has not always been the case - and both you and I are as guilty as anyone of failing to meet those criteria â if you want to make a go at it then hereâs your chance.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you have done a statistical analysis of a few (13? 17?) met stations from southern Canada, and your results suggest that there is a significant increasing trend in Tmin for all stations, and a flat or possible decreasing trend for Tmax at all the stations as well â but the significance of this has been questioned by others. Is that a fair summary?

You can argue that there is statistical significance in your Tmax trend â but there does appear to be some contention there. Nevertheless, I will accept that you are right for the point of this discussion, and leave it to blueshift and Chris to carry the discussion there.

Ok â so your results are sound. But like any science discussion - so what? In any science discussion or paper, the object is not just to produce data; it is to interpret that data in order to draw a conclusion to explain why something has occurred and to develop a theory that can be used for future predictions. This point has been hammered home for quite some time, and you have changed your position several times. But you now appear to have settled on a hypothesis that the climate is undergoing random natural changes, possibly in a cyclical or fractal pattern. And this then means that the theory of AGW â that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing an increase in global temperatures â is invalid. Once again, is that a fair summary?

But the question must then be asked â is your hypothesis valid? I would like to suggest that there are a number of major questions about your data and results that you need to address before we even look at your hypothesis, and I will throw a few in here:

In any statistical analysis, there are a couple of fundamental questions. Is your sample size sufficient to be able to draw conclusions, and is your sample representative of the population? Now, I will admit that I havenât crunched the numbers here, but I am going to suggest that 13 (17?) is far too small a sample size, and that southern Canada is NOT representative of the rest of the world. Would you agree or disagree? Why (not)?

Now, we can go on with the discussion from here, but I am going to suggest that unless your sample IS a useful dataset from which to draw robust conclusions, there isnât a lot of point. I know for a fact that the data from Australia does NOT support your hypothesis. But of course I also know that doesnât mean anything. You would need to include a fairly large sample, with data from a large range of climatic regions, before you could determine anything to any degree of confidence. And you just donât have that.

What you DO have is some preliminary findings which can be used a basis for further research. But that needs to be done first.

I would also like to suggest that your apparent concentration on a limited set of data points (Tmax) is leading you to spurious conclusions. For example, if I was trying to determine whether summers were getting hotter, I would look at other indicators such as whether the number of hot days/nights was increasing, and the summer Tmean. I will use a sporting analogy to explain. In a cricket team, if one batsman scores 100 runs, but the others all get out for less than 10, the team score will be less than 200, and thatâs a low score (typical for Australia at the moment). But if all 11 batsman score 50s, then the team score will be 500 (unusual unless you are playing against Australia at the moment). The absolute HIGHEST score (ie Tmax) may be lower, but the overall team score (ie overall summer heat) is much higher.

Finally, I am going to strongly suggest that you show that your research is based on science, rather than a political worldview. You appear to have adopted the position that AGW is flawed, and are now hunting around for something â anything â to support your already determined conclusion. This is VERY obvious in your statements about CO2 being good for plants, and polar bears not being threatened etc. NONE of those issues is in any way related to your research, and you have no evidence or credibility to support your assertions.

And stop linking to things you havenât read, just because you think they lend support to your political position. If you want to link to things that are relevant to your research, then go ahead and do so. But READ and UNDERSTAND them first. And donât link to junk science like the crap produced by the morons like the SPPI. It has NO credibility. Use journal articles.

Stick to the facts or your research, and I would also like to suggest that if you do, we will do the same.

There is no such thing as 'normal' climate.

Sure there is. Normal is what happens most of the time. What the planet was like for 500 million yeara before this glaciation period. Glacial periods are rare in the geological record, hence not normal. Normal for the planet is no winters.

Life does much better in tropical climates than temporate. Humanity did much better during the RWM and the MWP than we did during the LIA when crop failures starved millions.

And you got that from where? I can't remember ever saying it. And why does it matter what I think. We are discussing what YOU think here.

LOL, that's funny. This is a oneway street eh? Don't want to subject your own opinions to scruteny eh? Very typical. No this is not a forum just to bash be around. Your views are fair game. Your views are so flimsy you're affraid to defend them? Answer the question.

I would strongly suggest you go away and do a hell of a lot more work. Then when you have something which is worth discussing -

Recall I said that data fom places like Africa is lacking long term. South Africa: http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/TempTrendInSouthAfrica.pdf Now before you jump up and down with joy, note the range of years. I would expect this trend within that time frame.

And do you mean the condition about asking you to admit that you are wrong if the data shows that you are wrong? Why is that a problem for you?

I never have a problem with what the data shows. So post your link.

What I think about someone else's opinion is completely irrelevant.

No,this is a two way street. You must have something to hide.

Mandas #587,
I'm mostly following this thread for laughs now, but perhaps someone can salvage something here. So I have two points in response to "and a flat or possible decreasing trend for Tmax at all the stations as well â but the significance of this has been questioned by others. Is that a fair summary?

You can argue that there is statistical significance in your Tmax trend â but there does appear to be some contention there. Nevertheless, I will accept that you are right for the point of this discussion, and leave it to blueshift and Chris to carry the discussion there."

First, you ought to specify which Tmax you mean every time. From the context, it seems you are talking about the annual Tmax's, but Richard has repeatedly interchanged daily and annual in his discussion (and at least once used the daily Tmax distribution for analysis of the annual Tmax). Don't let that sloppiness spread.

Second, I gave up on carrying the discussion long ago. Richard simply refuses to test his results for any kind of statistical significance. He's had weeks and hundreds of posts to do so, but either can't or won't.

I'll be interested to see what Chris S. does, and I got some suggestions over at Tamino's on how to explore some of my ideas here. But I simply see no reason to engage with Richard.

Ok Mandas that was a very detailed and civil effort to engage Richard and I am willing to stand down and simply observe this. I am also willing to suggest that Chris and Ian et al. do the same. However, I need to make a couple of parting points before.

Finally, I am going to strongly suggest that you show that your research is based on science, rather than a political worldview. -- Mandas

In Richard's defense, Mandas (I know, perish the thought), this is a false dichotomy, to some extent subjective, a straw man, and requires Richard to prove a negative: "So, are you doing science as I understand it Richard, or are you just an ideological bullshitter?"

Richard, as I understand him, believes he is apolitical and simply engaging in heterodox science. Any arguable deficiency in his scientific technique does not perforce prove that his motivations are political.

Furthermore, I can't speak for Richard, but you lost me at the word "cricket". Come up with a hockey or curling analogy for our hyperborean disputant.

Finally, to Richard: I fully encourage you to attempt a detailed dialogue with Mandas from this starting point. I especially encourage you to focus on some of the key points for him--the ability to extrapolate from a select number of southern Canadian stations to the rest of the globe, the definition of "cooler" and/or "flat" in summer temperature trends, and what interpretation is to be attached to particular empirical observations (which is related to point one.)

However (and this is where I, for one, will be watching like a vulture), ensure that your responses to him are consistent with your earlier statements, empirical claims, and cited sources.

If they are not, then learn this simple act of finesse and humility: *Admit it*.

Changing your mind in the face of new evidence and arguments is an indispensable attribute of scientific inquiry. Its what all of us who call ourselves empirical investigators try to cultivate within ourselves, and the very purpose for which the scientific process of investigation and verification was developed.

"I am also willing to suggest that Chris and Ian et al. do the same."

Sure thing, I have nothing to add until I've done some analysis on the full Tmax and compared that to highest Tmax.

One parting shot: What do you call an Aussie with a hundred to his name? A bowler.

On a more serious note, Australia were worryingly poor & don't seem to be able to replace any of their top players from the last decade. World cricket needs a strong Aussie side so here's hoping they bounce back soon.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you have done a statistical analysis of a few (13? 17?) met stations from southern Canada, and your results suggest that there is a significant increasing trend in Tmin for all stations, and a flat or possible decreasing trend for Tmax at all the stations as well â but the significance of this has been questioned by others. Is that a fair summary?

If you want a civil discussion of the issue, my name is not Dick, it's Richard.

The anomaly of extreme summer temps used 29 stations. Generally you are correct. Understand that the few stations was because only a few statrions have a long period, which I have explained in detail.

And this then means that the theory of AGW â that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing an increase in global temperatures â is invalid. Once again, is that a fair summary?

If not invalid, at best insignificant. Swamped by the natural variarion.

Now, I will admit that I havenât crunched the numbers here, but I am going to suggest that 13 (17?) is far too small a sample size, and that southern Canada is NOT representative of the rest of the world. Would you agree or disagree? Why (not)?

The low number is no choice, thats all there is, And if that small number of stations is not good enough, then that also applies to the increase in TMin. Few stations is a problem to everyone, every position. I would contend that Canada is a fair representation of the northern temporate zone subject to testing.

You would need to include a fairly large sample, with data from a large range of climatic regions, before you could determine anything to any degree of confidence. And you just donât have that.

No one does. If this is your position, then AGW cannot claim the planet is heating up. There isn't sufficient coverage of the planet for a long enough period to make their claims. Hence I completely agree with you, and you now do not agree with AGW.

For example, if I was trying to determine whether summers were getting hotter, I would look at other indicators such as whether the number of hot days/nights was increasing, and the summer Tmean.

I did that. I showed that the number of days above 30C for various locations was dropping. Significant drop, 1/3 less. Tmean in the summer is not a measurement, it's entirely dependant on daily TMax and TMin.

The absolute HIGHEST score (ie Tmax) may be lower, but the overall team score (ie overall summer heat) is much higher.

Then you have a problem with TMean. It is JUST (TMax+Tmin)/2. That is, the highest of the day, and the lowest of the day. If you average each hour's temp to get an average for the day you get a number that is lower than TMean. I've already tested that. So that means TMean is TOO HIGH.

but Richard has repeatedly interchanged daily and annual in his discussion (and at least once used the daily Tmax distribution for analysis of the annual Tmax). Don't let that sloppiness spread.

Annual TMax *IS* a daily TMax, and I have been clear on which TMax is dropping. Summer TMax.

Second, I gave up on carrying the discussion long ago. Richard simply refuses to test his results for any kind of statistical significance. He's had weeks and hundreds of posts to do so, but either can't or won't.

That's pure BS. I've done what is needed to be done. Chris shows that I'm correct, the general trend in TMax is dropping, but is quite variable, DUH! Have a look at the South African analysis. They did the same thing I did.

Ok, one last try.

"That's pure BS. I've done what is needed to be done. Chris shows that I'm correct, the general trend in TMax is dropping, but is quite variable, DUH!"

For the trend line on the annual Tmax what is the slope and 95% confidence intervals?

"Four out of five ARGO data studies now show Ocean Heat Content declining"

Recent energy balance of Earth
R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Abstract
A recently published estimate of Earthâs global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993â2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003â2008) warming/cooling rate because of a âflatteningâ that occurred around 2001â2002. Using only 2003â2008 data from Argo floats, we find
by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from â0.010 to â0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/new-paper-on-argo-data-trenberths…

For the trend line on the annual Tmax what is the slope and 95% confidence intervals?

All year or just a season?

"All year or just a season?"

Annual Tmax, as I said.

Or how about this. You have the values of the yearly Tmax. Can you post a down-loadable spreadsheet on your site that has those values for a few of your sites? I'm imagining something that looks like this:

Year Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
1900 X1 X2 X3
1901 X4 X5 X6
1902 X7 X8 X9
....
2000 X301 X302 X303

Wakefield's trawling of rubbish science journals snags a new low. The "Journal" he quotes is published by an outfit called "Scientific Research Publishing". For information on this organization and its stable of journals and its fraudulent techniques see here:

http://improbable.com/2009/12/22/strangest-academic-journals/ (h/t to Ben at http://tinyurl.com/246q988).

This is the sort of stuff Watts and Wakefield spend their time dredging through (Watts has posts on at least two papers from this "non-journal").

No wonder anyone with any knowledge of science and how it is conducted become so annoyed with the likes of Wakefield.

Richard's latest link to Watts on this latest "study" is remarkable for all kinds of reasons.

Since he did not read it, does not understand it, never gave it even passing thought, he won't see the problems it presents him, but I'll wait till Mandas gets tired of this again.

Just for the record, Richard--its been noted and will not be forgotten.

Annual Tmax, as I said.

But that is going to be highly varying, from below zero in winter, to over 30 in the summer. That will make the R2 very small and the confidence value very low. Especially meaningless if the winter TMax is increasing but the summer TMax is dropping.

You can't even use june or aug for the summer, because the beginning of june TMax is increasing as it comes into summer, while in aug the opposite, TMax is starting to drop heading into fall. That will make the range of summer TMax highly variable, again dropping R2. That leaves only July TMax to get the tightest range of TMax.

And I can easily supply the xls files.

The "Journal" he quotes is published by an outfit called "Scientific Research Publishing".

Ian is incapable of refuting the analysis, so he resorts to the usual AGW faithful defence, shoot the messenger.

"But that is going to be highly varying, from below zero in winter, to over 30 in the summer. That will make the R2 very small and the confidence value very low. Especially meaningless if the winter TMax is increasing but the summer TMax is dropping."

Clearly we are having definitional problems here. When I say annual Tmax, I mean the single highest value for the year. It has been one of your core claims that what I call "annual Tmax" is going down. For example, in #294 of the previous thread you said "Second graph is the summer months TMax variation (6,7,8). Highest of TMax is CLEARLY dropping. The lowest of TMax is flat."

"And I can easily supply the xls files."

Please do. You are clear on what I'm asking for now, right? For each station (however many you want to do), a column with the single highest value for the year. Unless I have misunderstood what you meant by "Highest of TMax".

Mandas,
Just let me know if you think I'm distracting for a more important conversation.

Wakefield, I wont waste my time critiquing rubbish like that. It has three strikes against it.

1. It was cited by you, that almost automatically means it is junk.

2. It was written up on wattsuphisbutt, that means it really is junk.

3. One of the authors is a well known "denier" scientist.

As I said, with all those going against it, it is not worth my time reading it in detail.

Why do you never read papers that are written up in the established and respected journals? Ooooh I forget you are only looking for papers that support your fantasy hypothesis. Well you wont find any in the reputable scientific press. So continue to make yourself look stupid in the eyes of scientists everywhere with your support for dishonest "studies".

Talking about dishonest studies, are you related the that other dishonest Wakefield, you know the one whose work linked MMR vaccination to autism? He shares the same honesty in regards to science as you do. His work has just recently been labeled as fraudulent by a leading medical journal.

Can you post a down-loadable spreadsheet on your site that has those values for a few of your sites

I have posted the raw data a while back that Chris used. You will have to specify which station.

In the meantime, I did a 95% confidence value for the station Chris picked up, 2973. I included subranges, and all the data from the sql that obtained the max of TMax for each year:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/station-2973-summer-tma…

Notice the CL is low, barely above the R2. My plots have had the slope and R2 on them.

The xls was based on this method: http://people.stfx.ca/bliengme/exceltips/regressionslopeconfidence.htm This way you can see I've done it right.

He shares the same honesty in regards to science as you do.

I'm sure if I bothered to look through the list of incarcerated murderers I will find a Forrester, would you be related to one of them? And would that person reflect who you are? Ian, you are nicely showing a prime example of a True Believer in the Dogma. You are the reason why this and the previous thread fell into the gutter.

".....The anomaly of extreme summer temps used 29 stations. Generally you are correct. Understand that the few stations was because only a few statrions have a long period, which I have explained in detail.....

There are a hell of a lot more than 29 met stations in the world. You can't just use Canada - as EVERYONE has tried to explain to you.

"....and this then means that the theory of AGW â that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing an increase in global temperatures â is invalid. Once again, is that a fair summary?
If not invalid, at best insignificant. Swamped by the natural variarion...."

And your data for this assertion is.....what?/where? You can't just make statements like this without evidence.

So go away and get the evidence!!! And from ALL over the world. I will keep saying this over and over until you get it:

You have made a few observations from a limited number of met stations in one type of climatic region in a tiny corner of the world which is NOT representative of the world as a whole. That is a simple fact and I know your observations - valid or otherwise - are NOT repeated in Australia. Until and unless you can expand that set of observations to a larger sample size covering a range of climate types - ie your sample is both robust and representative - you have nothing.

And you cannot make claims or assertions without evidence. If you want to claim the CO2 signal is "swamped", you need to show how and why you believe that - WITH DATA.

Right now you have just a bunch of pretty graphs. If you want to turn them into some form of meaningful science, you need to do a hell of a lot more work.

Wakefiled tries to be smart:

I'm sure if I bothered to look through the list of incarcerated murderers I will find a Forrester, would you be related to one of them? And would that person reflect who you are?

NO

As I have said numerous times, honesty is the number one attribute for a scientist that is why you are no scientist. When you were teaching yourself all that you know did you omit the pages on honesty and ethics?

And RW - a few weeks ago you were absolutely adamant that there WAS a warming trend, and that the sun was the cause. You provided links to a number of papers "proving" this, and you were scathing of anyone who dared to criticise them.

Indeed, you stated that our criticisms of the papers meant nothing unless we wrote to the authors with our criticisms.

So, given that you now say there is NO trend, and that the changes are just because of random natural variations, what has changed your mind?

What about the papers that you previously linked to is incorrect? Why do you think they are wrong?

And I assume that you will be writing to the authors with your criticisms?

And your data for this assertion is.....what?/where? You can't just make statements like this without evidence.

That applies to both sides. There is no evdence that CO2 is changing anything in the climate beyond normal variation.

That is a simple fact and I know your observations - valid or otherwise - are NOT repeated in Australia.

Don't tell me, show me.

Until and unless you can expand that set of observations to a larger sample size covering a range of climate types - ie your sample is both robust and representative - you have nothing.

Near impossible with such little valid data around the world. South Africa doesn't have valid data before 1960. So how does one do ANY claims around the world with such scant data, including AGW?

So, given that you now say there is NO trend, and that the changes are just because of random natural variations, what has changed your mind?

I didn't say there is no trend, the trend is fewer hot days since 1900, and milder winters since 1900. I also said that random variations, as well as cyclic oscellations (some from the sun), have more effect than CO2 has. You asked me for evidence, where is the evidence that CO2 is changing the climate?

BTW, do you understand my meaning when I answered your one question with the response on whether the glass is half full or half empty?

And what about what is "normal", do you agree that what is normal is what has happened most of the time?

RW

You keep answering my questions with vague statements and assertions. Yo

"....That is a simple fact and I know your observations - valid or otherwise - are NOT repeated in Australia.
Don't tell me, show me...."

But you claimed to have the URL for the Australian BOM data. So you obviously know this - or is your claim about having the data incorrect?

"....I didn't say there is no trend, the trend is fewer hot days since 1900, and milder winters since 1900. I also said that random variations, as well as cyclic oscellations (some from the sun), have more effect than CO2 has...."

Your hypothesis is that your observations for Canada are the result of 'random natural variations'. So is there a trend or not? Are you really saying that your 'random variations' have been generally in one direction for over one hundred years?

And are you invoking the sun or not? If so, you need to show the causal relationship between your observations and the sun. How does the sun cause winters to get warmer, and summers to get cooler? I would have thought it was the other way around (but I will await your explanation - I may be wrong). But it is fundamental to your hypothesis that you can demonstrate this - with data and evidence.

"....Near impossible with such little valid data around the world. South Africa doesn't have valid data before 1960. So how does one do ANY claims around the world with such scant data, including AGW?...."

Don't cherry pick. Australia has data going back to 1850. But you know this, because you have the URL. What about the rest of the USA? Europe? New Zealand? Get what you can.

"....And what about what is "normal", do you agree that what is normal is what has happened most of the time?...."

No I don't. Most of WHAT time? And under what conditions? 'Normal' climate will be determined by the composition of the atmosphere, solar irradiance, the position of the continents, etc, etc. Change any of those variables, and 'normal' also changes. And since those variable are constantly changing (and we are changing the composition of the atmosphere - I presume you agree), then there is no such thing as 'normal'. And besides, if, as you assert, the climate is undergoing 'random natural variations' constantly, there is obviously no 'most of the time'.

Wakefield shows his denial of science once again:

There is no evdence (sic) that CO2 is changing anything in the climate beyond normal variation.

That is a blatant lie. Did you teach yourself about radiative physics when you "taught" yourself science? Seems that you did not.

The radiative physics of CO2 is a well established fact of science. No wonder you idiots are called deniers. Why do you not go and get yourself a proper science education if you want to play at being a scientist. That way people will be able to have a rational discussion with you rather than just simply putting down your stupid hypothesis.

You are pathetic and are getting more and more pathetic with every post.

Richard #605,
"In the meantime, I did a 95% confidence value for the station Chris picked up, 2973. I included subranges, and all the data from the sql that obtained the max of TMax for each year:"

Great, thank you. This is almost exactly what I've been looking for (ignoring for the moment whether the data violates any of the assumptions of the test.

I see that for this station, even the 1943 to 2009 subrange does not show cooling as the upper bound of the confidence interval includes a positive slope.

No big deal-I don't expect a single station would have enough data even *assuming you are correct*. So you need a way to gain more statistical power by looking at more stations.

Anyone have a suggestion for how to do that? My ideas right now aren't very satisfactory.

But you claimed to have the URL for the Australian BOM data. So you obviously know this - or is your claim about having the data incorrect?

I have the site, I have not written the code to download it yet.

Your hypothesis is that your observations for Canada are the result of 'random natural variations'. So is there a trend or not? Are you really saying that your 'random variations' have been generally in one direction for over one hundred years?

and..

Are you really saying that your 'random variations' have been generally in one direction for over one hundred years?

I would have thought my explanation was clear, guess not. You are fixated with the notion that randomness has no direction. It can if the vibration period is long and the measurement period is short. If there is oscillation, vibrations in the randomness, it will appear to have a direction if the time frame is shorter than the period.

And are you invoking the sun or not? If so, you need to show the causal relationship between your observations and the sun. How does the sun cause winters to get warmer, and summers to get cooler? I would have thought it was the other way around (but I will await your explanation - I may be wrong). But it is fundamental to your hypothesis that you can demonstrate this - with data and evidence.

It's not that simple. There is much more going on in the climate. The sun *IS* the primary energy source, everyone agrees with that. The question is what happens to the climate system. The sun heats only a small portion of the planet at any one time, that heat is trying to get to cooler areas via winds, frontal systems and ocean currents. The climate's response to the sun's input also lags. Summer solstice is June 21, but the hottest month is July. A nice example of a chaotic event with a period is el nino, and la nina. The sun provides the primary energy for these, but their period and intensity is random. They are one of the oscillations I was referring to.

Don't cherry pick. Australia has data going back to 1850. But you know this, because you have the URL. What about the rest of the USA? Europe? New Zealand? Get what you can.

Small parts of the world, most of the topics do not have sufficient data, if at all.

How many glaciations periods have there been in the last 500 million years? What percent of the last 500my is this glacial period?

Ian, what physical measurable effects has CO2 produced in the climate?

So you need a way to gain more statistical power by looking at more stations.

I will apply this to the anomalies for the 29 stations. Also apply to winter TMin. If there is no significant trend in either since 1940s, what does that do for AGW?

Wakefield shows his ignorance and denier persona by asking the following question:

Ian, what physical measurable effects has CO2 produced in the climate?

All honest scientists including the large majority (97%) of climate scientists understand that because of the radiative properties of CO2 it absorbs IR wavelengths of EMR. The energy of the IR is passed on through molecular collisions to other molecules in the air (oxygen and nitrogen in case you are ignorant of that too). This causes WARMING. Since the increase in CO2 comes mostly from burning of fossil fuels the associated warming has come to be known as anthropogenic global warming (since it is observed on a global scale) or human caused climate change. Take your pick.

Jees, how anyone can try and discuss AGW without knowing these basic facts is a wonder to me. You truly are an ignorant and arrogant person.

Richard #616,
"I will apply this to the anomalies for the 29 stations."

I'd say hold off for a moment, unless this you have this automated. Each individual station is going to have a large confidence interval and won't tell you anything (probably). You need to combine the analysis somehow to even expect a result. But since these are annual highest Tmax values, neither averaging or converting to anomalies makes sense. There must be a reasonable method- but I don't know it off hand.

"Also apply to winter TMin. If there is no significant trend in either since 1940s, what does that do for AGW?"

I don't think you can say anything about AGW with this small of an area and without examining the mechanisms behind AGW predictions. But that's a whole separate discussion and other posters are addressing this.

Ian, LOL, you really have swallowed the coolaid. In other words, you have nothing that has changed. Warming, WHAT WARMING?! You mean the flat trend of the global mean since 1998. And the downward trend of summer TMax in Canada? And this "warming" is bad how?

Has there been anything else, rain changes, snow changes, storm changs, anything like that? Nope. Nothing.

"97%" of climate scientists, you mean all 75 of them http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-…

Each individual station is going to have a large confidence interval and won't tell you anything (probably).

I assume you would like to see each station's slope and range and see what they all look like collectively. I was thinking about doing this a while back, and see what the slope looks like by region. That is not a easy task to automate, I'd have to write a program to drop the values into an xls template, and extract the slope values, and place those in another sheet. I've done this before, it's a pain.

That said, I expect there to not be much deviation from that station. They will all be close.

Wakefield you are getting more and more dishonest and more and more arrogant.

You know nothing about climate science if you stand by the nonsense in your last post.

Cherry picking (1998) is not honest science. Look at the decadal averages over the past few decades. Each one shows a higher and higher temperature anomaly. 2010 meteorological year, was the warmest in modern times. Check the GISS site, oops you think Hansen is a hoaxer. Well you are wrong, he is infinitely more honest than you and your denier friends. ?also, even with your cherry picked year of 1998 all four major temperature analyses show warming. if you choose 1997 or 1999 the warming is even greater.

People, discussing science with Wakefield is a waste of time, he is resorting to his dishonest persona that I warned about over 1000 posts ago.

When is someone going to put an end to the farcical "science" that Wakefield is ranting on about. This is a science blog!

Can we trust Wakefield to do this either honestly or without an error?

That is not a easy task to automate, I'd have to write a program to drop the values into an xls template, and extract the slope values, and place those in another sheet. I've done this before, it's a pain

Past history says NO.

Each individual station is going to have a large confidence interval and won't tell you anything (probably).

I assume you would like to see each station's slope and range and see what they all look like collectively. I was thinking about doing this a while back, and see what the slope looks like by region. That is not a easy task to automate, I'd have to write a program to drop the values into an xls template, and extract the slope values, and place those in another sheet. I've done this before, it's a pain.

The simplest way is probably to perform an analysis of variance, extracting a linear contrast from the effect due to years. Before doing this, of course, you would have to check that the errors are normally distributed and perform a transformation if necessary.

Ian, have you programmed excel with VB? I didn't think so. Just a bit beyond you. Take another gulp of the coolid and admire the picture of your idle Hansen on your wall.

Wakfield, doing "Excel Games" does not make you a scientist. Honesty and knowledge are required. You fail miserably in both cases.

People, why are you pretending that Wakefield has anything useful to say? His "hypothesis", even if it is correct does not and will not falsify AGW. AGW is correctly described by simple chemistry and physics. What happens in a small part of the globe is immaterial to AGW. If Wakefield had read some of the papers presented in these two threads he would have seen that his "hypothesis" does not apply globally.

Just for the record . . . .

Richard, your linking of Solomon on the critique of the Doran et al study--which shows that neither you nor Solomon read the study--has also been noted for future discussion.

Ian's hero in 1986:

âWithin 15 years,â said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, âglobal temperatures will rise to a level which hasnât existed on earth for 100,000 yearsâ.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=n39JAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pgsNAAAAIBAJ&pg=…

Keep drinking that coolaid Ian!

"The Central England Temperature record is one of the longest continuous temperature record in the world extending back to the Little Ice age in 1659. December 2010 was the coldest December in 120 years with an average of -0.7C just short of the record of -0.8C recorded in December 1890 and the Second Coldest December Temperature in the entire record (352 years). "

"Germany has experienced the coldest December in more than 40 years, the German Weather Service (DWD) said."

"According to the Swedish meteorological agency SMHI, several parts of Sweden, including the southern region Gotaland and eastern Svealand, experienced âthe coldest December in at least 110 years.â "

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/december_2010_a_december_to_rem…

No wonder Wakefield doesn't understand global climate change, he doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Go and get an education you are only making a fool of yourself with all the nonesense you keep repeating from your favourite denier sites.

If there are any here with a open mind (that counts you out Ian).

http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/07/wheres-the-missing-heat/#more-1866

Still lurking and observing . . .

Again Richard cites as an authority (Curry) a person who specifically contradicts his own position.

Keep posting and linking, Richard! The fun never ends.

Mandas, I've downloaded Darwin station TMax. What did you find it was doing?

Flat since 1942, no data before that: http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/darwin-jan-tmax/

Again Richard cites as an authority (Curry) a person who specifically contradicts his own position.

And how does Curry contradict my position? She has commented that my analysis was very interestng.

I've been looking for more stations in AU at this site: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/ The nice feature they have is the ability to see the number of records available. It's pathetic. And I thought Canada was bad. I've updated my post with Melbourne, also a flat trend in Summer TMax.

Perth only has records since the 1950's, not long enough. So, mandas, unless you have something different to show, I can conclude that with those two stations, and likely the entire continent, summer TMax has not changed at all, just normal fluctuations.

Now with all you people's complaining I can't speak for the rest of the globe, you have been shown wrong. I now can. There has been NO INCREASE in summer temps in Canada or Australia. TMax in Canada has been dropping, in AU it's flat.

Wakefield stop lying. I showed you that Coral Harbour and Sachs Harbour, both in Canada the last time I checked, are not following your stupid "hypothesis".

Melbourne is definitely not "cooling" as you said every station was doing on the very first few posts (over 1000 ago). And as others have told you time and time again AGW theory predicts that summers will not warm as quickly as winters so what is the point in your "analysis" except to waste everyone's time to show that you are a certifiable nut case.

As for the Knox and Douglass "paper". You did read it didn't you? Did you see the obvious cherry pick that they used? It was so blatant that I would have though that even some one of your lowly scientific skills would have seen it.

I showed you that Coral Harbour and Sachs Harbour, both in Canada the last time I checked, are not following your stupid "hypothesis".

Only in your mind. You showed nothing of the sort. The dataset was way too short, and since the 1970's has been flat.

So, going to show me any climate events changing because of AGW? Or just ignore the question?

Wakefield I am getting tired of your continuing lying and lack of scientific ability. The effects of CO2 are just recently emerging from the other forcings causing temperatures to vary. Solar has been decreasing for the past 50 or so years so we only need to look at the past 40 to 50 years to see if CO2 is having an effect on temperatures since we know that other factors were involved before that time. Why do you pick 1970 for your data start point when much earlier data are available? That is cherry picking and you know it, that is why you are called out on your dishonesty.

Get over it, humans are causing a massive increase in CO2 emissions, CO2 concentrations are rising because of this, CO2 is a green house gas and is causing an increase in average global temperatures (aka an increase in energy content), the warmer temperatures from CO2 are amplified by increasing water vapour (because water vapor is also a GHG) resulting in a temperature increase of approximately 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentrations.

You may not like it but that is what the science is telling us. Anything to the contrary is from denier lies, distortions, cherry picks and other forms of scientific malfeasance.

If no or little increase in summer TMax is predicted by AGW, then how come these prodictions:

Deadly Heat Waves More Likely
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=251

google "more heat waves expected"

So, Ian, you are admitting that nothing abnormal is happening now, it's all speculation of a possible future based on flawed computer models that can't predict anything. Thank you for admitting that. Now, how much longer must no change happen before you give up on AGW? Or is it even possible for you to give up the Faith?

Not likely when your idol is Hansen and your "science" comes from RC.

Wakefield stop being so obtuse. You are the only person who continually goes on about "annual Tmax". Climate scientists talk about the average of "daily Tmax", which is completely different as has already been shown to you by other posters.

Summer temperatures are increasing just read some scientific papers published in a reputable journal not the fish wrap where deniers are found.

And no-one is saying "no or little increase in summer TMax is predicted by AGW".

That is a complete lie (surprise, surprise). What climate scientists are saying is that summers will warm at a slower rate than winters will warm. That is completely different from what you are saying.

Why do you continually lie?

Wakefield garbles posts:

So, Ian, you are admitting that nothing abnormal is happening now, it's all speculation of a possible future based on flawed computer models that can't predict anything. Thank you for admitting that. Now, how much longer must no change happen before you give up on AGW? Or is it even possible for you to give up the Faith?

I never said anything close to what you are saying. Your English comprehension skills are as low as your science skills. Or are you just being your usual dishonest self? It is hard to distinguish between your stupidity and ignorance of science and when you are being completely dishonest.

so we only need to look at the past 40 to 50 years to see if CO2 is having an effect on temperatures since we know that other factors were involved before that time.

And what has Sachs Harbour TMax done in that time Ian? 40 years ago *IS* 1970. So I chose YOUR time frame.

Updated the page with Sydney July TMax (winter). Flat since the 1920's. No increase at all in Ian's 40-50 year time frame.

And how does Curry contradict my position? She has commented that my analysis was very interestng.

Since you don't read in general, and haven't even read Curry, you of course don't know.

She doesn't know what you believe. *I* think your analysis is "interesting", Richard. I also know it proves nothing you think it does. I also know that Curry would agree.

This is because I have actually read Curry.

a temperature increase of approximately 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentrations

Since our CO2 emissions are doubling every 25 years, you are saying in the next 100 years the temp will increase by 12C? Our summers here will be in the 40's? Australia in the 50s?

What climate scientists are saying is that summers will warm at a slower rate than winters will warm.

Show me which places in the world have an increase in summer temps in your 40-50 year time frame. Not in Au and not in Canada. True or false, 1970 is within your 40 year time frame and Sachs Harbour shows no increase.

Since you don't read in general, and haven't even read Curry, you of course don't know.

That's funny. Her blog is on my daily must read list, and I have posted there several times, and why I'm here in the first place, Coby ready my post there!

So be specific, what has she said that contradicts what I have posted? From her posts she seems quite the AGW skeptic to me.

Poor scientifically and logically challenged Wakefield does not understand the difference between emissions and concentrations:

Since our CO2 emissions are doubling every 25 years, you are saying in the next 100 years the temp will increase by 12C? Our summers here will be in the 40's? Australia in the 50s?

Do you understand anything about science, maths or logic? Obviously the answer is NO.

By the way, have you discovered the huge cherry pick in the Knox and Douglass paper? Didn't think so, even if it is obvious to most it obviously is way too challenging for you to understand.

Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself?

Fair question, Richard.

She specifically disputes your position on the effects of carbon on the atmosphere.

She specifically repudiates other sources you have cited as authorities.

You would know this based on other posts I have made, but that would require you to . . . .read.

She would *not* accept your extrapolation from southern Canada to the world. She would never embarrass herself thus.

No, Richard. The type of adherent you attract is Snowman.

Her blog is on my daily must read list.

So is Watts. That's what led to your epic humiliation on the Laken quote.

Furthermore, she is not on your "must read list", because you don't read. She is on your mindless-copy-and-paste list. If you had actually *read* her posts--including the ones you have so ineptly linked here--you would never have cited them as authorities.

Updated to show the record high TMax years for Melbourne. There is no increase in record setting days in the past 50 years, most are in the early 1900's. Highest temp year was 1939.

Richard 646 "Since our CO2 emissions are doubling every 25 years, you are saying in the next 100 years the temp will increase by 12C?"

The 'doubling' referred to is CO2 concentration, not emissions. At least half of our emissions are absorbed by oceans and other sinks.

And the 'doubling' commonly referred to is from 280ppm to 560ppm. So far the concentration has increased to near 390. So for 110ppm concentration increase, we've had 0.7C temperature increase. If that ratio holds, we can expect another ... how much? ... for a further 170ppm increase in concentration.

Do the maths for the ratio holding steady. Then do some more for increasing response from oceans releasing a bit / absorbing less heat and /or CO2 as things go on.

Skip, cite the post and comment number to back up your claims. If you know them so well, you must have them.

Ok, Ian, how long will it take us to double the concentration?

we've had 0.7C temperature increase.

Do you see that in any stations I have presented? Is that theoretical or measured?

Cite the post and comment number to back up your claims. If you know them so well, you must have them.

I've already done it once. If you didn't read them then, what basis would I have to assume you would read them now?

Did you see the obvious cherry pick that they [Knox and Douglas] used?--Ian #635

Don't worry, Ian. I did.

I *read* it.

Did anyone catch this?

I can conclude that with those two stations [Perth and Melbourne], and likely the entire continent, summer TMax has not changed at all . . . I now can ["speak for the rest of the globe"]. Richard

Richard, have you run this by Judith Curry yet?

Richard, have you run this by Judith Curry yet?

Skip. I could do the entire planet but one station and you would not accept it. How come you accept it when climatologists extrapolate a few station to the whole planet? How many more stations do I have provide you with before this becomes preditable for the planet?

What does Curry have to do with it?

Is Australia's TMax increasing, yes or no? Are there more hot days in the past 30 years relative to the previous 100? Yes or no?

Mandas claimed he had the numbers and said TMax was increasing, was he right?

How come you accept it when climatologists extrapolate a few station to the whole planet?

You are the only person I am aware of who extrapolates from a few stations to the whole planet.

What does Curry have to do with it?

I would ask you the same question in reference to the numerous times you've copied and pasted from her blog.

But more important, you claim she's "must read" material for you and are proud to inform us that she has declared your analysis "interesting." I simply wonder what you suspect she would make of your declaration about "the rest of the globe."

I fully confess to knowing *nothing* about overall climate patterns in Australia.

Its a skill you would do well to cultivate: Shutting your mouth until you've read something.

Yes - mandas is right.

He is also bored with this whole discussion.

Goodbye.

He is also bored with this whole discussion.

Well isnt that rich, and very typical. Challenge me to check Australia, that AU data doesn't match what is happening in Canada, take me to task for not checking elsewhere, and when I do, when I show that AU data shows no increase in summer TMax, you tuck your tail and run. How utterly typical of a close-minded True Believer of the faith.

I suspect you never had any AU data to begin with, it was a bluff, I called it, and you folded you cards leaving the table.

You are the only person I am aware of who extrapolates from a few stations to the whole planet.

No, the entire climate community does. Or do you think there are stations every few hundred kilometers everywhere on the planet? Not only do they extapolate to distant places, they manipulate the data from one station and use it to fill in holes in other stations. How else can Environment Canada make their claim when they are using the exact same station data I did, since it came from them?

I simply wonder what you suspect she would make of your declaration about "the rest of the globe."

We are going to find out, I'm writing a piece on heat waves and will be submitting it to her.

Hello Richard,

I, like you would be considered a denier and are treated with contempt by most people on this site so dont get too upset with what i am about to say.

I think after 662 + posts on this subject you have made your point and you could churn through another 662 posts but you still will not convince anyone of the above posters that you are right.

My advice would be to call this a draw and move on to another topic. Now dont get me wrong i think you have done yourself proud i certainly could not withstand the barrage for this long and God knows i have tried.

Coby has countless threads just waiting to be visited so why dont you pick one and we can give these believers a run for their money, what do you think?

Cheers

Crakar

More lies from Wakefield:

No, the entire climate community does. Or do you think there are stations every few hundred kilometers everywhere on the planet? Not only do they extapolate (sic) to distant places, they manipulate the data from one station and use it to fill in holes in other stations.

The surface data is so accurate it agrees exactly with the satellite data. How do you explain that? And before you start accusing more scientists of fraud don't forget that the UAH satellite data are produced by Spencer and Christy, two avid AGW deniers. Remember that they used error filed data manipulation to produce results which showed cooling? It took them ages to admit that they were wrong and deniers still quote these results as if they were factual.

Wakefield, it is time you moved into the honest reality of science and left your dishonest life behind you. You will be a better person for it.

crakar @663

Actually, its over 1200 posts now (there is an earlier continuation thread) - hence my boredom.

You can't convince someone who ignores evidence and just keeps repeating dogma. You know - a creationist.

Richard,

Richard Simons in #623 seems to have the right idea for the next step in your statistics. (Where we stand now, is that for the individual station you analyzed the trend was definitely positive from ~1900 to ~1940, but could be either positive or negative since then and for the overall record.)

Hi Crakar

Now that I have shown these True Believers that Au data also shows no increase in summer TMax, I think my claim that this applies to the rest of the world holds true. If they had station data of summer TMax increasing they would have produced it by now. But not one of them has done that. Now we have Mandas, who challenged me to a duel, and lost, runs for the hills, I suspect you are correct to call this thread done. But that's up to Coby.

I'm working on a new post to expose the lie from the AGW community that more heat waves are the future (which the True Believers here deny is a prediction of AGW).

Just getting started:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/more-heat-waves-expecte…

I'll check out some of Coby's other posts I haven't bothered previous.

Richard Simons in #623 seems to have the right idea for the next step in your statistics.

I answered that post. There is no error in the data. The wild swings are not error. The measurement error is less than .1C. For example, a particular thermometer reading is either 28.8 or 28.9C, especially for older records.

The linear fit to the data, as wild as it is,*IS* the best fit. Having a plus/minus for that slope is not applicable for this problem. If the swings in the data was due to measurement error, then sure, the slope would be with that range of plus/minus. But these swings are readings, actually happened. Hence the slope is the trend for that time frame. Of course the time frame is way too short as the summer TMax undulates around a random walking mean. That slope will change the longer the measurement period.

But the imporant point of all of this is that summer TMax is *NOT* increasing. It's either flat or falling. AGW predicts hotter summers. It's not happening in Canada, and not happening in Australia. If you have station data that shows summer TMax is increasing, show it. Otherwise, one can now with a much higher degree of confidence claim that NO WHERE on the planet is having summer TMax increasing. And that *does* falsify AGW.

You've declared victory with the same aplomb you cited Laken, Ollier, and all the other "authorities" which either contradict or embarrass you, Richard. It must feel good for you in a way I'll never understand.

I have to grudgingly agree that Mandas talked big then vanished with regard to Aussie data.

But Richard, your biggest mistake is assuming you have something worth disproving.

It only makes logical sense that many (and who knows perhaps even most) temperature stations with data going back to 1900 will show flat/insignificant summer Tmax trends, for the simple reason that early 20th century average temperatures were higher than the mid-20th for reasons that are well understood and no threat to the late 20th century AGW hypothesis.

Furthermore, as part of the alleged cause of early 20th century temperature is solar variation, it only makes sense that that part of the century would have relatively high summer Tmaxs because daytime temps in the summer would be disproportionately affected by the sun. All of this has been pointed out to you before, but you don't read.

Your only response to this is to plug your ears and insist that AGW proponents believe only CO2 affects climate, which is self-immolating absurdity. We don't believe that. This is simply a stupid thing that you hold your breath and keep telling yourself because without this straw man your silly arguments collapse.

Now, I will say this: If there are *no* stations that show at least insignificant summer Tmax rise *anywhere* on Earth from the time frame 1900 to now, then that would be way interesting. I mean, even if AGW were *false* I wouldn't expect that to be the case just from the sheer weight of probabilities.

Richard #669,

"I answered that post. There is no error in the data. The wild swings are not error."

Umm, error doesn't mean quite what you think it does in statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_and_residuals_in_statistics

"But the imporant point of all of this is that summer TMax is *NOT* increasing. It's either flat or falling."

According to the confidence intervals you've calculated so far, the only thing you can say is that highest annual Tmax increased over a short period. That is it.

"But the imporant point of all of this is that summer TMax is *NOT* increasing. It's either flat or falling. AGW predicts hotter summers. "

The highest summer Tmax is somewhat interesting, but does not tell us all that much. Chris showed that the daily summer Tmax is increasing. You *may* show that the most extreme values haven't gone up.

Skip, on the new blog post i linked earier, you will see claims in peer reviewed papers that AGW means higher summer temps. Just Google "More Heat Waves Expected".

According to the confidence intervals you've calculated so far, the only thing you can say is that highest annual Tmax increased over a short period. That is it.

Where do you get that from? Every station I've looked at is either flat trend or falling, NONE show increase.

Chris showed that the daily summer Tmax is increasing. You *may* show that the most extreme values haven't gone up.

Chris showed nothing of the sort. His "effort" was pathetic. The trend for that station is up from 1900-1940, then DOWN. http://cdnsurfacetemps.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/figure-3.jpg

So how about the Aussie data. See any increase in that? Nope nothing. Yet the High Priests of AGW claim we should be seeing more heat waves. How many times do these guys have to be falsified before you stop beleaving in it. Is there anything that the planet can do to falsify AGW?

Mandas @665,
Looks like your bluff has been called alright; otherwise, given your usual nauseating level of sanctimonious self-preening ("Listen to me everyone â because I am a *Scientist*. . .â), you would surely have presented a checkmate move to undo RWâs thesis.
So unless you go ahead and produce this checkmate move, I suggest you admit that *you* are wrong, in which case you can bugger off and not hog this site with endless comments, as you did before RW showed up, leaving Witchsmeller Ian Forrester to brand you a liar (which you must be if you won't produce that Aus data). However, if I.F. calls you out on this, I will truly eat several hats. Brothers-in-arms and all that.
Although RW's analysis is too limited to hold any significant merit, any lurker here will surely conclude that he is mostly correct, since no one here can show otherwise, despite the collective bluster and self-righteousness of the self-declared climate intelligentsia that infects this blog.
Hopefully this will soon be the end of this god-awful thread.

Richard #672,
"Where do you get that from? Every station I've looked at is either flat trend or falling, NONE show increase."

I get it from the confidence intervals that *you* calculated. The upper limit for the overall record and the sub-ranges that you chose are all positive. Therefore you can't exclude an increasing trend. *You can't say what the highest Tmax is doing based on the analysis that you have done to date*.

"Chris showed nothing of the sort. His "effort" was pathetic. The trend for that station is up from 1900-1940, then DOWN. "

That looks like highest annual Tmax. I said daily summer. You have previously linked a paper which also showed daily Tmax increasing. Are you saying that paper was wrong?

On the new blog post i linked earier, you will see claims in peer reviewed papers that AGW means higher summer temps.

Richard, you're simply refusing to understand because if you did you would realize that you've wasted half a retirement on this nonsense.

AGW *does* predict higher summer temps, but this does *not* exclude the possibility that these will rise more slowly than winter temps (in fact that is predicted by the theory), or that that it necessarily means *Tmax* will rise from 1900 to 2000.

You made this "discovery", which is easily accounted for in the theory, and now you're trying to find a way that its profound.

This is why you don't read the things you cite; they don't really say what you want them to.

Furthermore, AGW theory says that the anthropogenic signal overwhelms all others in the *late 20th century*. So even if we accept your definition of "summer heat", it would be most appropriate to look for changes in that variable in the late 20th century, not 1900 on.

This is where you shot yourself in the foot with your latest goofy link to Watts on global heat trends. I'm sure you don't know why.

So even if we accept your definition of "summer heat", it would be most appropriate to look for changes in that variable in the late 20th century, not 1900 on.

And I did just that to which Ian claimed I was lying by cherry picking dates. You two need to get your act togther and figure out what is and is not acceptable.

BTW, from Ian's use of 40-50 years back, TMax is FLAT or dropping. There is no increase.

And rubish that AGW doesn't predict hotter summers, the High Priests have said so, repeatedly, on 1,260,000 websites. Thus it's YOUR attempt to some how explain away a flat TMax as not a threat to the theory. If they are not talking about increased TMax, what does "more frequent and more intense heat waves" actually mean? How would that manifest itself in the form of changes in TMax?

You just simply cannot accept that a prediction of AGW is false (one of many).

I get it from the confidence intervals that *you* calculated. The upper limit for the overall record and the sub-ranges that you chose are all positive

That is just absolutey false. Some of your lurkers are now claiming you are wrong. Get over it. TMax is dropping, everyone can see that no matter how you try and stats it away somehow. Look at the 6 graphs I have so far, 3 stations, with 3 different measures each. It's NOT getting hotter, the vast majority of record days are before the 1950's. The number of hot days is dropping.

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/more-heat-waves-expecte…

Admit it, no increase in summer TMax refutes what the High Priests of AGW have written in peer reviewed papers. You are now spinning your wheels in the deep snow, going nowhere.

"That is just absolutey false."

Its your own analysis Richard, whether you understand that or not. From here:
http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/station-2973-summer-tma…

1904-2009. Slope lower limit -0.00702081, upper limit 0.024868573. So your test tells you the slope could be either positive or negative.

1943-2009. Slope lower limit -0.041589655, upper limit 0.016280373. Again, the slope could be positive or negative.

As I told you, this is not unexpected for a single station and if you combine all the stations properly you *may well find confirmation of what you have been claiming*. Richard Simons told you how to do this, but you apparently didn't understand what he was saying because you aren't familiar with basic statistical definitions.

Your tripping over the most basic aspects of analysis and I don't care about any potential implications until you can get it right.

Wakefield disproved again. I plotted the annual Tmax for Penticton from 1970 to 2009 and found an increase in annual Tmax of 0.208 degrees C per decade, which is a higher trend than the global average (0.15 degrees C per decade).

The data can be downloaded and extracted from:

http://scraperwiki.com/views/canada-weather-station-map/full/

So I have looked at three Canadian stations and all three have increasing annual Tmax. When will Wakefield come to his senses and realize that his "hypothesis" has been shot down in flames?

And he seems to think that increasing summer temperatures are the only ones causing problems. Tell that to the people whose livelihood depends on the forestry industry where warm winters are allowing Western pine beetles to devastate huge swaths of Western Canadian and Western US forests.

And rubish that AGW doesn't predict hotter summers.

Who said it didn't? This again, is another of your straw men.

This is the key thing you're trying so hard to not realize. Summers *can* be hotter without your Tmax significantly increasing. And they don't *have* to be hotter within the time frame and in the region you chose to analyze.

1904-2009. Slope lower limit -0.00702081, upper limit 0.024868573. So your test tells you the slope could be either positive or negative.

No. The trend is not in that range, the slope is the best fit, period.

If you were taking measurements and the crude appliance you were using had a huge error variation, then that range of the slope would be appropriate. But the swing in TMax is not from error measurements, it's actual measurements accurate to less than 0.1C. Hence the range of the slope is inappropriate for this situation. The confidence value in this case is a measurement of the probability of any given temp measurement is within the standard deviation.

Try as you might you will never get a flat or dropping slope to increase.

Why don't you apply this same criteria to your own High Priests of AGW. What is their range of slope for the world's average yearly Tmean? In fact, we NEVER see any ranges at all, just a nice line of a meaningless number.

if you combine all the stations properly you *may well find confirmation of what you have been claiming*.

You mean like this: http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/heat-wave-trends-across-can…

Sure looks like a defintive drop in TMax anomaly.

Summers *can* be hotter without your Tmax significantly increasing.

HOW???? Explain that. BTW, the High Priests *ARE* saying significant increase in summer temps.

And they don't *have* to be hotter within the time frame and in the region you chose to analyze.

You will need to explain this with an example. Not speculation off the top of your head. Don't say it, show it.

Skip in 680,

I think i understand what you are saying:

Summers could be hotter if Tmax stays the same but Tmin increases this will increase the average is that what you meant?

Your second point is correct it was the coolest year here in Australia since 2001 and yet 2010 was the hottest or near to it globally. Also London had its coldest December in over 350 years so regionally in this time frame the Tmax was definitely not hotter.

Hope this helps

Congradulations to Ian!!! He found ONE station in all of canada that has an increasing summer TMax. A round of applause for Ian.

Now how many stations did you go through to get that? I guess AGW is only affecting that one location in Canada.

And, wow, look how "Hot" 2010 was! 4th coldest summer since 1941. So much for the hottest year on record.

Oh, and BTW, here are the stats for the full range:

slope0.021 ± 0.029
lower-0.008034042
upper0.050927927

According to blueshift, that could still be a negative slope.

Two questions. Why did you cheery pick from 1970 when the dataset goes back to 1941?

Second,question, is the last 40 years hotter than the 1930's? Oh, that data does not exist, in fact I just checked EC database for close by, and that station has the longest, so we will never know.

I do have fort st james, also in the interior, but north. It has a dataset from 1900, notice it is completely flat http://cdnsurfacetemps.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/figure3a.jpg

So how do you explain the difference?

December in over 350 years so regionally in this time frame the Tmax was definitely not hotter.

And Western Canada had one of the coolest summers on record. Ontario was warm, but not beyond the upper standard deviation, so where was it hot enough to make the world hotter over all?

No where, it's a fraud.

Here is an interesting story about what a man with a laptop and a copy of excell can do.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/laptop-beats-met-supercomputer-soi-ind…

I hope you enjoy this RW

More Wakefield lies:

He found ONE station in all of canada that has an increasing summer TMax. A round of applause for Ian.

That is the most egregious lie you have told yet. I looked at three stations and all three showed increasing annual Tmax.

Why are you so dishonest?

I have also found a report which supports mandas' claim that summers in Australia are warming. Remember, you're very first post stated that you had found that summers were not warming but were cooling? When that was shown to be wrong you switched to daily Tmax, then when that was shown to be wrong you switched to annual Tmax. Well none of your assertions are correct. They have been shown to be completely wrong. Where are you going to shift the goal posts now?

Hey, Ian, have a look at Kamloops, just up from your station. Include 2010 in the data and the trend is completely flat since 1951. So looks like AGW is happing only in Penticton! Looks like you indeed kept checking until you found the only station that has its summer TMax increasing, makes one wonder if there isn't a problem with the station.

Myth of the Pine Beetle.

"Global warming activists have been quick to seize on the pine beetle âepidemicâ as a sign of things to come and an impending ecological disaster. In truth, drawing the line between manmade climate change and the pine beetle outbreak is a stretch that few experts make. Rather, most see the outbreak as a natural function of forests and in many ways it is Mother Nature correcting manâs previous mistakes."

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Pine beetles as a harbinger of manmade climate change destruction - National Climate Change | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/climate-change-in-national/pine-beetles-as-a-ha…

Ian, you really should keep up to date.

"No. The trend is not in that range, the slope is the best fit, period.

If you were taking measurements and the crude appliance you were using had a huge error variation, then that range of the slope would be appropriate. But the swing in TMax is not from error measurements, it's actual measurements accurate to less than 0.1C."

Richard, you've proven once again that you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of what you are trying to do.

I'm going to talk to my kitchen table, it will be as productive as this.

#668:

Richard Simons in #623 seems to have the right idea for the next step in your statistics.

I answered that post. There is no error in the data. The wild swings are not error. The measurement error is less than .1C.

Oops! I assumed you had some basic statistical knowledge. In statistics, 'error' does not mean that some mistake has been made. It refers to the more or less random deviation a measure has from the theoretical 'ideal' or expected value.

Perhaps I should have anticipated this difficulty, as when you were referring to normal distributions I was far from convinced that you actually understand that a normal distribution is not just an everyday distribution, but has a precise equation. Ask your statistical relative for clarification on both of these points.

Re: Beetles.

So, Richard, can you tell me: Has summer BeetleMax declined in southern Canada since 1900?

While you're formulating an answer I'll be looking in the mirror and preening.

It refers to the more or less random deviation a measure has from the theoretical 'ideal' or expected value.

And with Tmax what is the "ideal" or "expected" value?

Finished it:

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/more-heat-waves-expecte…

Skip,

The Beatles have been in decline since the 70's latest estimates are that their numbers have been cut in half.

It refers to the more or less random deviation a measure has from the theoretical 'ideal' or expected value.

And with Tmax what is the "ideal" or "expected" value?

The error is e (usually written as epsilon) in the equation txy = m + ax + by + e
where txy is the temperature at location x in year y, m is the overall mean and ax and by are the effects due to location and year respectively.

I do not plan on taking you any further through the process as dealing with linear contrasts is not typically covered until at least two earlier statistics courses have been completed and you clearly do not have the background to handle it. As I suggested earlier, consult the statistics relative you claim to have in your family. It is much easier to explain face to face with someone. You will need a copious supply of paper and pencils.

I couldn't find the paper that predicted an increase in Tmax in Southern Canada from 1900 to the present.

Did I miss that one, Richard?

Wakefield post #690

You obviously know as little about forestry as you do about climate science - ZERO.

Time you gave up showing how stupid and ignorant you are.

By the way I just did another Canadian station, Kuujjuarapik. Annual Tmax is rising at a rate of 0.168 degrees C per decade. I have done four stations and found that all four have rising annual Tmax. Do you still stand by your very early statement:

Well, your prediction is false. If you took the time to look through the whole site you will have seen two things. First that my analysis of all stations in Canada with long enough data shows the same trend, everywhere, every station. Summers are cooling.

That is just utter rubbish.

As for Australia, here is a quote from an Australian Government Report:

The 2004 east Australian heatwave occurred against a background of a long-term increase in the frequency of hot days and nights and a decrease in the number of cold days and nights in Australia (Figure 2; Collins et al. 2000; Nicholls and Collins, 2006) and more generally across the western Pacificâeastern Asia region (Manton et al., 2001). Griffith et al., (2005) reported almost universal increases in maximum and minimum mean temperature across the AsiaâPacific region, along with decreases in the frequency of cold nights and cool days. Most stations showed an increase in the frequency of hot days and warm nights

So are you going to admit that you are completely wrong in your assertion that summers are cooling all over the globe when the only two countries you have picked to prove your "hypothesis" have been shown to be doing the opposite of what you claim?

Ian, how come Kamloops is flat trended when your station just a few kilometers south shows increase. Explain.

How do you explain Melbourne Au shows no increasing trend at all in Tmax, number of hot days, or record temp days.

Re Kuujjuarapik.

Ian, interesting you failed to note that that location is missing the following years:

1947
2007
2006
2008
2004
2003
1938
1939
1945
1946
1956
1954
2009
2010

All you can claim is there is an increase from 1957 to 2002. Since it is well known that 1945 to 1975 was cooler than 1980's onward, then yes that short range would be expected to show some over all increase. But after 2002 there is NO DATA so you cannot make any long term claim. Nice cherry picking. Proves nothing with missing data. This is the best you can do?

For someone who wanted to exit early on, you sure are spending a lot of time looking for a station that is increasing. How many stations have you rejected because there is no increase?

Keep looking if you must, but what ever station you present here I will check.

Ian I can play this game too. Stations with a drop or flat in Summer Tmax:

Kenora (drop)
Gander NFD (flat)
Moncton, B (flat)

I could go on, but you are beginning to realize that there are very few stations with good data aren't you.

How long do we have to put up with all this rubbish from Wakefield? He is making a mockery out of science, climate science and statistics.

He does not have a clue about anything he is discussing but will continue to spout rubbish ad infinitum.

Coby, you are doing your blog readers a disservice by allowing this to go on. You are tacitly supporting Wakefield's junk science by allowing him to post it on your blog.

I must side with mandas as I have spent enough of my time trying to correct all Wakefield's mistakes. He will never admit that he is wrong. So enough is enough.

Please do the responsible thing, otherwise your blog will loose all the respect it once had.

Ian, Richard's posts speak loudly and clearly about his ignorance of basic statistics and lack of logical reasoning. His personal shortcomings are no threat to science, climate science or statistics. While it is also my personal preference that this thread just dry up, others are still participating and I am not inclined to pass judgement on all and declare there is nothing left worth saying.

If you do like mandas and voluntarily withdraw, it will soon come to an end on its own. No one whose opinion is worth respecting will think that whoever has the last word must be right, we can let him have the last word.

Richard Simons. My daughter-in-law is an engineer for Miller Paving, one of the largest in the country. They don't use anything past linear best fit. They have no need to go "deep" in statistics because in the real world the slope is more than enough for them to project from. Thus all this cry of yours for more stats is academic. The fact is, summer TMax is *NOT* increasing which the High Priests of AGW claim it should. No amount of statistics is going to make these trends increase. Theories rise or fall on their ability to predict. That's where your faith fails.

Coby, this thread originally started because you did not like my claim on Curry's site that the followers of AGW are doing nothing but practicing dogma. Nothing has changed other than your site heavily confirms that premise. Do you honestly believe that TMax is still increasing? Did you even bother to check Ian's two locations? He refuses to explain his choices, instead doing what the faithful do when cornered, ad hominen attacks. That is one of the hall marks of a deep dogmatic True Believer. What is a threat to your site is your giving safe haven to people like Ian and Mandas.

Most neutrals who have followed this thread would, I think, call it a points verdict to Richard. It is surely not enough to repeat endlessly that he is an idiot, knows nothing about statistics and so on. His detractors must show that he is wrong, and - although it is possible that I have missed it - no one has done so. Mandas, of course, claimed to have the killer facts, but beat a hasty retreat when challenged, even by Skip, to put up or shut up.

Some, such as Coby, have taken a more subtle approach. If I understand them correctly, they are saying that it is irrelevant whether or not Richard's figures and calculations are correct: they are of no significance and do nothing to challenge AGW theory. I have no idea if this is true, but I am inclined to give Coby, who strikes me as a pretty straight sort of person, the benefit of the doubt.

But to return to Ian, Skip, Mandas et al, they have emerged from this with little credit. Their sacrcasm and abuse demonstrates, for many of us, precisely why the AGW industry is losing this debate in the wider world. A little more humility, not to mention courtesy, would have made their arguments more convincing.

They don't use anything past linear best fit. They have no need to go "deep" in statistics because in the real world the slope is more than enough for them to project from. Thus all this cry of yours for more stats is academic.

I would not call the determination of contrast in analysis of variation as being 'deep in statistics'. However, I can see that it is more than is required by most businesses. I am not aware of having called for more statistics. It seemed to me that people asked you to provide a statistical justification for your claims and you did not know how to combine data from different sites. I gave one way it can be done.

The fact is, summer TMax is *NOT* increasing which the High Priests of AGW claim it should.

No. You have shown that you could not find an increase in Tmax over the past c100 years for a limited number of places in a restricted part of the world. Others claim (and I have not looked at their results) to have found increases in Tmax over the last few decades at other locations.

You have a small sample size (although it was probably not easy to collect), there is wide variability in Tmax from year to year and the expectation from basic physics is that Tmax will be increasing. If global Tmax is truly increasing at the expected rate what is the probability of obtaining your observed results purely by chance? If you calculate this and find a low value of P you may persuade people that your claim has some validity.

BTW It occurred to me that the mean of observations tends to be normally distributed. Instead of using individual years, find the mean Tmax for groups of, say, 5 years and use these values as your observations. They are likely to be close enough to being normally distributed for your purposes and save you the hassle of determing if the original data were normally distributed.

Richard S., have provided not only two continents worth of data, some too short, not only have I shown that Ian's locations are either full of holes (missing data), or a time frame too small, or an increase in TMax with a neighbouring location less than an hour's drive away flat, others surrounding this location are also flat, but you have not demanded from people like Ian to also provide the same stats you demand of me to bolster their claim. Why is that?

It appears to me that you are holding on to some kind of hope that summer TMax should be increasing, and because it is not, it is rather uncomfortable for you.

Anyone in the sciences, who are looking for what is really going on, not what one WANTS to be happening, would look into this deeper, look at more locations instead of demanding of more and more and more and more to "prove" what is obvious! Every time i've been demanded to show another dimention of the stats I have provided it, and every one shows no increase in TMax. Yet it is not enough for you or anyone else here who are True Believers. You need to explore why it is you cannot accept the obvious. AGW's pediction of hotter summers is false.

The fact is, summer TMax is *NOT* increasing which the High Priests of AGW claim it should.

Where, Richard?

Do you [Coby] honestly believe that TMax is still increasing?

Where did Coby say this?

call it a points verdict to Richard. Snowman

Snowman, you haven't even read the thread.

Here, Snowman: I'll prove it.

Quote what *you* think was Richard's most effective argument.

Quote it. You haven't read this thread and you know as little about Richard's position as you do about AGW in general. You see a guy thrashing at air and call him Mike Tyson.

Hilarious.

RS. As for normal distribution, I have done that too with this animation. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/does-temperature-profile-fo…

To the rest. Put aside your distane for WUWT and read this careully:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/earths-changing-atmosphere/

Hey Snowman nice to see you survived your second coldest winter in 353 years.

Maybe you can help me here, i read the other day that the MET office in keeping with tradition totally screwed this winter prediction aswell by claiming this winter will be mild.

Suffice to say many people have been giving the MET a hard time over this, the MET then turned around and said they made it all up because the UK Gubbermint told them to keep quiet about the extreme cold bearing down on them.

The BBC who are made to look like folls everytime the MET get it wrong through blind support have now issued FOI requests to the gov. to try and get to the bottom of it.

This news story has seen very little coverage (at least here in the back blocks of nowhere) so tell me is this just a storm in a tea cup or is the good ship AGW heading into stormy waters?

Crakar

You're right, Crackar, it is potentially a very interesting story. The allegation is that the UK Government told the Met Office to keep its mouth shut because they didn't want any talk of extreme cold with the Cancun conference just around the corner. The latest is that the BBC has reputedly put in a freedom of information request to find out if this is true or not. However, this FOI story has not been corroborated, so we will just have to wait to see if it is accurate. It is hard to imagine that the AGW propagandists of the BBC would demand the truth on a climate story but stranger things have happened, I guess.

Well either the UK Gov. are going to look like religious idiots who have lost their way or the MET are going to be show the world that it does not matter how much money you have or no matter how big your computer is you still cannot predict the weather from one month to the next. Disclaimer, this has no bearing on the accuracy climate models or so they say.

I knew it, Snowman.

You don't read the thread; all you know is Richard fights AGW, so you mindlessly label him Mike Tyson.

And uh, why don't you two climate prodigies take this ingenious line of discussion to the Its Cold Today in Wagga Wagga thread?

Because its not cold in Wagga Wagga today?

Even if it was you would say the temp records were rigged.

Richard: Answers?

One other thing:

So, Richard. How did your email exchange with Judith Curry go?

Here is my latest attempt to hijack the thread.

In the early 2000's a Prof David Karoly claimed the Murray Darling Basin drought was caused by AGW, his claim was that higher temps in the basin led to higher evaporation of course we all know that he got his cause and effect arse about.

But to be perturbed Karoly has shocked the nation by claiming the latest floods in Queensland are caused by .... you guessed AGW. Now Karoly is a permanent guest on the ABC (Aust Gov. propaganda arm) and he has no trouble talking about issues that are outside his field of expertise.

This has prompted another scientist who is in fact an expert in this field to send a couple of emails. The first is to the ABC.

Dear Mr Uhlmann

I would like to protest the repeated interviews with Prof David Karoly with regard to the Queensland floods.

Since 2003, I have published a number of papers in the top-ranked international peer-reviewed literature regarding the role of La Nina in dictating Eastern Australian floods.

There has been no evidence of CO2 in affecting these entirely natural processes, irrespective of their devastating nature.

Why is it then, that someone without any publication nor insight in this key area of concern for Australia is repeatedly called upon to offer his personal speculation on this topic?

This is not a new problem with Prof. Karoly.

In 2003, he published, under the auspices of the WWF, a report that claimed that elevated air tempertatures, due to CO2, exacerbated the MDB drought. To quoteâ¦

ââ¦the higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observedâ¦â

The problem with this is that Prof Karoly had confused cause and effect.

During a drought, moisture is limited. The sun shines on the land surface, and as moisture is limited, evaporation is constrained, and consequently the bulk of the sunâs energy goes into surface heating which itself leads to higher air temperatures. This effect can be as much as 8-10 degrees celsius.

This is a common confusion made by those who have not studied the interaction of the land surface hydrology and atmosphere, as Prof. Karoly has not.

Undoubtably Prof Karoly has expertise but not in the area of hydrology or indeed in many other areas on which the ABC repeatedly calls on him for âexpertâ comment.

Could I please ask that you cast your net a little wider in seeking expertise? These issues are too important for the media commont to be the sole domain of commited environmental advocates. Surely objective journalism also requires objective science?

Sincere best wishes,

Stewart Franks

He also sent an email to Karoly himself'

David

Your comments on the role of CO2 in the Qld floods are speculative at best, immensely damaging at worst.

When will you accept that CO2 is not the answer to everything? When will you decline an interview for the lack of your insight?

Have you not learnt from your physically incorrect speculation about temperature and evaporation during the MDB drought? Do you have no shame to have confused cause and effect in such a brazen and public manner?

Is it enough for you that your pronouncements sound correct, irrespective of science? Have you learnt nothing?

You are arguably the best example of the corruption of the IPCC process, and the bullshit that academia has sunk to.

Shame on you

Stewart

Richard S., have provided not only two continents worth of data, some too short, not only have I shown that Ian's locations are either full of holes (missing data), or a time frame too small, or an increase in TMax with a neighbouring location less than an hour's drive away flat, others surrounding this location are also flat, but you have not demanded from people like Ian to also provide the same stats you demand of me to bolster their claim. Why is that?

I am not saying that you are wrong. What I am saying is that your claim seems to go against basic physics and therefore you need to demonstrate that, if global warming is assumed to be taking place, your results are unlikely to have happened purely by chance. You have, as far as I can tell, not even attempted to do this.

Anyone in the sciences, who are looking for what is really going on, not what one WANTS to be happening, would look into this deeper, look at more locations instead of demanding of more and more and more and more to "prove" what is obvious! Every time i've been demanded to show another dimention of the stats I have provided it, and every one shows no increase in TMax. Yet it is not enough for you or anyone else here who are True Believers. You need to explore why it is you cannot accept the obvious. AGW's pediction of hotter summers is false.

Until you really get to grips with the statistics and demonstrate that the results you observed were unlikely to be caused by random variation, you will not convince people to take you seriously. It may be 'obvious' to you, but to others it is equally obvious that you have a problem with variable data and a small sample size. It is your claim; you need to do the stats to show them that they are wrong.

(Two continents' worth of data? Surely this is a slightly exaggerated given that in the primary continent you considered you omitted the US, Mexico, Greenland and a large chunk of Canada?)

RS. As for normal distribution, I have done that too with this animation. http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/12/does-temperature-profile-fo…

My internet connection is slow - I am not interested in spending 20 minutes watching an animation that probably does not tell me what I want to know. Which test of normality did you use and what were the results?

To the rest. Put aside your distane for WUWT and read this careully:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/earths-changing-atmosphere/

I glanced at it but as soon as I saw the reference to CO2 being plant food I realized it was not worth my time to study it. The bits I saw on ozone also seemed to be gobbledy-gook. The general impression was that it was sciency rather than science.

Richard:

Answers?

Put aside your distane for WUWT and read this careully:

Did you read it "carefully", Richard? For that matter did you read it all?

I doubt you read it any more carefully than Watt's post on Benjamin Laken's research.

I envy your ability to forget your public humiliation.

Many of us are enjoying the irony of Skip, of all people, accusing Richard of public humiliation. The 'Faux Intellectual's' own humiliation on this thread is just about complete. Clearly out of his depth, he grandly announced that he would withdraw from the argument, pretending that he was generously doing so to leave the field clear for others. Then, when Mandas was cruelly exposed as a bluffer, what does Skip do? Does he admit that, having ridden on Mandas's coat tails, he too is left stranded and exposed? Of course not: he reverts to his tiresomely childish tactics - accusing his opponents of not having read various reports. ('Go on,' he says in effect 'admit it, you haven't read it, have you, have you..?')

Some might think this whole experience would teach the Preening One some humility. No such luck, apparently.

Re: 712 "Hey Snowman nice to see you survived your second coldest winter in 353 years."

Coldest winter? Or Coldest Month? I walked to work this morning & had to take my jumper off it was so warm. Last time I looked Winter was still here (Dec, Jan, Feb).

So we now have RW claiming one day = summer (daily Tmax = summer Tmax) and crakar claiming the coldest UK winter in 353 years when we're not even halfway through it.

I'm enjoying the irony of snowman championing such intellectual rigour.

On a similar note:

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/01/dogs-and-deniers.html

Wrong (of course) again, Snowman. I did not say that. This is just another of your red herrings. I can document what I really said and what ensued but it would require you to *read* beyond your 250 word ceiling.

And since the subject matter is, according to you, "out of my depth", then you should be able to answer the question you have still dodged: In your view, what has been Richard's most impressive argument to date? What was Mike Tyson's most crushing blow?

But of course you don't understand Richard's arguments. You don't understand the devastating critiques that have been made shredding them. It means you would actually have to read.

But its 4 am and I'm up early getting ready to take my wife to the hospital for her C-section, and as much as honesty requires me to stipulate that I loath your attitude toward this subject, I need to muster some charity in my heart at this moment. (It isn't easy, I have to admit.)

Richard, Snowman, et al., stay warm. I imagine imminent parenthood will diminish my contributions to this forum in a way Snowman's jibes never would have.

'I imagine imminent parenthood will diminish my contributions to this forum....'

For this relief much thanks.

All the best with your new addition skip. I bet you won't be able to stay away for long though...

your claim seems to go against basic physics

How so?

Greenland and a large chunk of Canada?

Because those large chunks have no data. So how can even the AGW make their claims then?

CO2 being plant food I realized it was not worth my time to study it.

So CO2 ISN'T plant food? Your biases are showing when you deny such a basic principle of plant physiology.

SKIP:

Did you read it "carefully", Richard? For that matter did you read it all?

Right,and I didn't make several comments.

Congrats on the new addition, we had 4, and now 7 grandchildren.

CHRIS:
So we now have RW claiming one day = summer (daily Tmax = summer Tmax)

Chris, do you have a problem reading? I do THREE checks on TMax. Not just the highest of the summer, but also the number of days above a threshold, including the top 10% of all summer days (it's dropping), as well as looking at record setting days in the summer TMax since 1900 (80% of which were before 1950). So your characterization of my analysis is FALSE. Hence it must be a real threat to your faith in AGW.

I recently made this statement

"Hey Snowman nice to see you survived your second coldest winter in 353 years." Which was of course incorrect.

It should have read "Hey Snowman nice to see you survived your second coldest start to winter in 353 years."

It has been pointed out that winter has only just begun in the NH and my original statement has caused some confusion with those that lack the ability to apply common sense. To all those in this category i do apologise.

Sincerely

Crakar

your claim seems to go against basic physics

How so?

Check out the basic theory behind the concept of CO2 mediated global warming. I know of no mechanism that would cause Tmax to decrease as atmospheric CO2 concentration increased and you have not presented one.

Having a reason for not presenting data from Greenland and large parts of Canada (and also the US and Mexico) does not permit you to claim that you have data from the whole continent. I am not interested in rehashing the arguments about whether a few long runs of data are preferable to using all the available data, and what to do about missing data, etc.

CO2 being plant food I realized it was not worth my time to study it.

So CO2 ISN'T plant food? Your biases are showing when you deny such a basic principle of plant physiology.

The only times I have seen CO2 referred to as 'plant food' has been in articles that displayed a Grade 4 understanding of plant physiology and ecology. It is one of the warning flags, like seeing 'the missing link' in an article on human evolution. BTW, I have taken several post-graduate courses in plant physiology (plus one of my publications was in plant physiology).

Coming back to the question I asked earlier, which test of normality did you use and what were the results?

The Liar, The Witchsmeller, and The What-A-Bore, all gone from this blog within a day of each other?
Where am I going to get my comedy value from now?

By the way, prediction for Mandas's next excuse for avoiding admitting that he lied when he said he had a devastating analysis at hand to smite the denier RW (we've already had: "I'm bored", "I did do it, I just don't want to show it", and "It's raining"):

"The dog ate it! Honest!"

[And Mandas claiming ad hominem as a deflection from his culpability just about takes the biscuit]

I mentioned just above: "Where am I going to get my comedy value from now?"

From Chris S. obviously! #725!!!
"Coldest winter? Or Coldest Month? I walked to work this morning & had to take my jumper off it was so warm"[!!!]

Comedy gold, Chris, thank you!
By the way, how is your competing analysis of RW's data interpretations coming along? You know, from your high-minded statements in the original thread before Xmas? Found any other polynomials to apply yet??? I'm just saying, because with Fields Medal-winning input like that, I can see how you're easily in a position to try to take the intellectual high ground . . .

Skip, got a reply back from Curry on my blog post on the heat waves. Said it was well done.

I know of no mechanism that would cause Tmax to decrease as atmospheric CO2 concentration increased and you have not presented one.

I don't have to because CO2 has NO EFFECT on the climate, this proves it. So you are saying that AGW predicts increases in Tmax. And since THAT IS NOT HAPPENING, it means that your theory's prediction has been falsified.

(This is in contrast to the rest of the believers here, who have no problem with inceasing CO2 and cooling summers.)

As for the missing data, this applies to EVERYONE. How then can anyone make any claims that CO2 is increasing temps when most of the planet has no data?

Yes or no, CO2 is plant food. More CO2 means faster plant growth. Your distain for the term and hence rejecting an entire article is YOUR biases showing, nothing to do with the content of such article. Typical Domga.

And no, I'm not going to run a distribution analysis on 100 curves, when only one of those years was even close to a normal distribution. If you run the video you will see there is high amounts of skewness, and the SD wildly increases and decreases. If you want to run such analysis, feel free to do so. I don't need to do your work for you because you have doubts. I don't have your doubts.

LOL.

Thank God for hospital wireless or I might have missed this.

So Max, I might be a preening faux intellectual; what are you--the demure and Authentic Man of Reason?

How eager you are to sneer at mine and Mandas's efforts. If you really believe Richard is the clown you admit then where were you all this time? Just waiting for Mandas to show an (apparent) slip so you could spring your long-practiced denunciation from your dignified perch Above it All?

And look at the hangers-on you attract--the likes of Snowman, who delights in your label of me while ignoring the unflattering ones you've bequethed on his "Mike Tyson".

If my contributions are so boring and beneath your station, you have the option of not reading them (of course that would then beg the question of how you could determine they are boring, but I doubt you trouble yourself with these subtleties with your superiority so firmly established in your own mind.)

The purpose of this *Layman's* blog is not to intrigue *you* (although I suspect at some level you already realize that; see below); it is to present these subjects and open them for discussion among non-experts--as I have always admitted being.

Don't Lie, Mlax. You've been living for this moment--your chance to make your epic splash in this small pond in which your regard yourself as such a big fish.

But here. Don't take my shit. Show me what a *thrilling* post on this topic looks like. Entertain me, enthrall and titillate me. Show me how what I, in my faux-intellecualism, think is an inherently dry subject tapping drier research, can be packaged into a tour de force that both informs and entertains.

You mock my capacity to do so; show me how its done, Carl Sagan.

@736

I don't have to because CO2 has NO EFFECT on the climate, this proves it.

You need to demonstrate that, if global warming is taking place at the rates claimed by NASA, Hadley and others, your observed results are unlikely to have occurred by chance. Until you have done this, you cannot hope to overturn 150 years of physics, and even then you will have just taken the first tiny steps.

As for the missing data, this applies to EVERYONE.

It certainly does.

How then can anyone make any claims that CO2 is increasing temps when most of the planet has no data?

Study how others have handled the problem (there are various possible procedures).

More CO2 means faster plant growth.

This is exactly the kind of naiveté I associate with the use of âCO2 is plant foodâ. Agreed, under ideal conditions in which water and nutrients are not limiting, more CO2 can result in faster plant growth. However, check out Liebigâs Law of the Minimum. In addition, other factors come into play. For example, higher CO2 results in a higher concentration of carbohydrates and a lower concentration of protein, meaning that sap-sucking insects and grazing animals have to consume more to get the protein they need, which obviously reduces plant yields and cow productivity.

In addition, plants may respond to increased pests by producing chemicals that defend against pest attack but also reduce their palatability for humans and domesticated animals.

Two plants that do respond well to elevated CO2 are poison ivy and kudzu. Increasing plant growth is not always a good thing.

Higher temperatures can also reduce crop yields, especially increased night temperatures. This, of course, is when the plants are respiring rather than photosynthesizing. High daytime temperatures can also reduce yields by causing an effective water shortage. Water is lost through transpiration faster than it can be carried up the stem. Pollination of many crops is temperature sensitive and is the main reason why, for example, wheat is seldom grown in the tropics. There is evidence that these effects of high temperature are starting to limit rice yields in Thailand.

I'm not going to run a distribution analysis on 100 curves, when only one of those years was even close to a normal distribution.

Where does â100 curvesâ come from? You have never claimed to have 100 sites. Presumably your reference to years was a typo for sites as it is impossible to determine if Tmax (remember, a single value for each site/year combination) is normally distributed using just the data from one year. Are you sure you know what is meant by a normal distribution?

If you run the video you will see there is high amounts of skewness

This strongly suggests you should transform the data before analyzing it. Most statistical tests assume normality in the data and those that do not tend to be less sensitive.

I don't need to do your work for you because you have doubts. I don't have your doubts.

If you want to convince anyone of the validity of your claims, you do need to do the work. How many have you convinced in the last few months, apart from those with a track record of cheering anything that seems to contradict AGW? I for one would be intrigued if you had a proposed mechanism and even marginally persuasive evidence that Tmax was not increasing globally. That is why I've been making suggestions as to how you could improve your case. However, so far, Iâve seen nothing that could not be explained by the effects of chance acting on a restricted sample.

@736

I don't have to because CO2 has NO EFFECT on the climate, this proves it.

You need to demonstrate that, if global warming is taking place at the rates claimed by NASA, Hadley and others, your observed results are unlikely to have occurred by chance. Until you have done this, you cannot hope to overturn 150 years of physics, and even then you will have just taken the first tiny steps.

As for the missing data, this applies to EVERYONE.

It certainly does.

How then can anyone make any claims that CO2 is increasing temps when most of the planet has no data?

Study how others have handled the problem (there are various possible procedures).

More CO2 means faster plant growth.

This is exactly the kind of naiveté I associate with the use of âCO2 is plant foodâ. Agreed, under ideal conditions in which water and nutrients are not limiting, more CO2 can result in faster plant growth. However, check out Liebigâs Law of the Minimum. In addition, other factors come into play. For example, higher CO2 results in a higher concentration of carbohydrates and a lower concentration of protein, meaning that sap-sucking insects and grazing animals have to consume more to get the protein they need, which obviously reduces plant yields and cow productivity.

In addition, plants may respond to increased pests by producing chemicals that defend against pest attack but also reduce their palatability for humans and domesticated animals.

Two plants that do respond well to elevated CO2 are poison ivy and kudzu. Increasing plant growth is not always a good thing.

Higher temperatures can also reduce crop yields, especially increased night temperatures. This, of course, is when the plants are respiring rather than photosynthesizing. High daytime temperatures can also reduce yields by causing an effective water shortage. Water is lost through transpiration faster than it can be carried up the stem. Pollination of many crops is temperature sensitive and is the main reason why, for example, wheat is seldom grown in the tropics. There is evidence that these effects of high temperature are starting to limit rice yields in Thailand.

I'm not going to run a distribution analysis on 100 curves, when only one of those years was even close to a normal distribution.

Where does â100 curvesâ come from? You have never claimed to have 100 sites. Presumably your reference to years was a typo for sites as it is impossible to determine if Tmax (remember, a single value for each site/year combination) is normally distributed using just the data from one year. Are you sure you know what is meant by a normal distribution?

If you run the video you will see there is high amounts of skewness

This strongly suggests you should transform the data before analyzing it. Most statistical tests assume normality in the data and those that do not tend to be less sensitive.

I don't need to do your work for you because you have doubts. I don't have your doubts.

If you want to convince anyone of the validity of your claims, you do need to do the work. How many have you convinced in the last few months, apart from those with a track record of cheering anything that seems to contradict AGW? I for one would be intrigued if you had a proposed mechanism and even marginally persuasive evidence that Tmax was not increasing globally. That is why I've been making suggestions as to how you could improve your case. However, so far, Iâve seen nothing that could not be explained by the effects of chance acting on a restricted sample.

if global warming is taking place at the rates claimed by NASA, Hadley and others, your observed results are unlikely to have occurred by chance. Until you have done this, you cannot hope to overturn 150 years of physics, and even then you will have just taken the first tiny steps.

No, these people have to show that their THEORY (which AGW is) actually applies to the real world (it doesnt) by checking their predictions against reality (they fail). You are assuming AGW is reality, hence any reality that doesn't conform and does not have a "rational" explanation must be rejected.

Yes or no. Summer TMax is not increasing. It's either flat or dropping.

I don't need to provide an explanation as to WHY Tmax is not increasing. Mentle didn't have an explanation as to why his genetics experiments worked, they just did.

TMax is not increasing as you obviously think it should, the reason why it's not is not needed Fact is it is not increasing, which falsifies AGW.

This is fundemental science here. Facts are NEVER rejected just because the "why" eludes us. You are clearly demonstrating that AGW is not science. One can clearly see this deparature from science with Kevin Trenberth's recent comments.

Study how others have handled the problem (there are various possible procedures).

Yes, inventing data ex nihilo and passing it off as fact.

How much of the world is actually measured tempeatures vs how much is not? If Canada is any indication 95% of Canada doesn't have temperature records. That means 5% of the country is being used to create data for the other 95%. And they call this science, right...

However, check out Liebigâs Law of the Minimum.

I know what that is. Ever wondered how those sauropods got so big? Could it be that plants grew 5 times faster back then because CO2 was 5 times higher?

Two plants that do respond well to elevated CO2 are poison ivy and kudzu. Increasing plant growth is not always a good thing.

"Good" or "Bad" are relative human emotions which do not belong in science. Faster growth for poison ivy is an advantage for that plant.

Higher temperatures can also reduce crop yields, especially increased night temperatures.

You will have to provide a reference to back up that last part. Your problem is, it's not getting hotter. It's getting less cold. Winters, since 1900, have become less cold. That's what is driving the average mean temp up. Not increasing summer temps, because the summer isn't getting hotter.

Where does â100 curvesâ come from? You have never claimed to have 100 sites.

Run the video. There are some 100 slides, one for each year, which shows the temperature range distribution for each year (number of summer days at each TMax). Yes, I know what a normal distribution curve means. See http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/ where I have applied such analysis on a different topic.

I for one would be intrigued if you had a proposed mechanism and even marginally persuasive evidence that Tmax was not increasing globally. That is why I've been making suggestions as to how you could improve your case. However, so far, Iâve seen nothing that could not be explained by the effects of chance acting on a restricted sample.

Not having the why TMax is not increasing does NOT invalidate the fact that it is NOT increasing. If CO2 is NOT affecting the temperature, then the "why" TMax is not increasing is because there is no forcing there to increase it. It's just doing what it normally does. You are ASSUMING that it SHOULD increase, hence some mechanism must be countering that forcing (hence your erroneous claim that it violates physics, no it only violates YOUR understanding of AGW, never physics). You will not entertain the high probability that there never was any CO2 forcing to begin with. The theory is wrong. But you will not concider that the climate system is far more complex and has no problem dealing with increases in CO2 levels in ways we yet understand.

And yes, as soon as I get more stations I will do that analysis too. In the meantime, you have to ask yourself if CO2 is supposed to force summer TMax higher, why is that not happening in Canada and Australia? Remember, just because the "why" is not there does NOT invalidate the fact that summer TMax is not increasing. That is a fact.

RS, I suggest you read this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/unequivocal-equivocation/

Skip,
You use too many sentences, but the ones you do use are beautifully constructed.
This is a layman's blog, as you fairly point out, and Coby has taken the philosophical position not to delete or edit renegade or just plain dumb postings. This, for a blog with a purported scientific backbone, is a mistake in my opinion, as it just encourages what I term the "Delingpole Effect", where every kind of random asshole (myself included) can show up an hijack the whole site.
I'm afraid that *thrilling* post is beyond me in this forum, and especially in relation to climate science. Hence, you've never seen me post before and you'll never see me post on the science, because I do not know the topic well enough to ever speak authoritatively on it. Unfortunately, all the rest of you, on both sides of the argument, are the same, and all the ones on the pro-AWG side are mostly only succeeding in feeding trolls. How else can you expalin that RW has lasted 1,200+ posts across two threads without being convincingly taken down? It's not that convincing science doesn't exist to smite him into oblivion, it's just that you regulars are knowledgable enough to present it and argue it, and you end up doing more harm than good. RW has clearly become emboldened in this process, I'm sure you'll admit, because he sees himself having still survived to this point, and no one is presenting any significant flaw in the *basic form* of his data trends so he is thinking he is mostly right. *Not perfect* in regard the rigor of his analysis, but he probably thinks he is "onto something". The reason I got all sneery with Mandas is that he talked big, set up a big bet with RW that would force RW to publicly admit he was "wrong" (i.e. essentially that he was a liar/denier) and then when RW took the bet and went further and put up Aus-data trends on his own blogsite, not only could Mandas not supply the evidence to show him wrong, Mandas also failed to make any comments against the *basic form* of RW's trends. For Mandas - the seemingly self-appointed know-all of this site and the most pontificating self-righteous person I think I have ever had the sufferance to read - to be so cruelly exposed as a liar (integrity of and in science being the drum he has beat so relentlessly to date) has fatally undermined all others of you who are regularly on his side. Mandas now looks like a bad case of The Emperor's Clothes, and the rest of you have almost little to contribute that is meaningful to the science anyway. So now that you've fed the troll, and the troll is fat and feeling strong, how are you going to undo this?
Wow, what a boring post this was. Look at all those sentences, many of them stunning in their lack of creativity. I am hereby hoist by my own petard.
Skip,
In general, you use too many sentences, but the ones you do use are beautifully constructed.
This is a layman's blog, as you fairly point out, and Coby has taken the philosophical position not to delete or edit renegade or just plain dumb postings. This, for a blog with a purported scientific backbone, is a mistake in my opinion, as it just encourages what I term the "Delingpole Effect", where every kind of random asshole (myself included) can show up and potentially hijack the whole site.
I'm afraid that a *thrilling* post is beyond me in this forum, and especially in relation to climate science. Hence, you've never seen me post before and you'll never see me post on the science, because I do not know the topic well enough to ever speak authoritatively on it. Unfortunately, all the rest of you, on both sides of the argument, are the same, and all the ones on the pro-AWG side are mostly only succeeding in feeding trolls. How else can you explain that RW has lasted 1,200+ posts across two threads without being convincingly taken down? It's not that convincing science doesn't exist to smite him into oblivion; it's just that you regulars arenât knowledgeable enough to present it and argue it, and you end up doing more harm than good. RW has clearly become emboldened in this process, I'm sure you'll admit, because he sees himself having still survived to this point, and no one is presenting any significant flaw in the *basic form* of his data trends so he is thinking he is mostly right. *Not perfect* as regards the rigor of his analysis, but he probably still thinks he is "onto something". The reason I got all sneery with Mandas is because he talked big, set up a big bet with RW that would force RW to *publicly* admit he was "wrong" (i.e. essentially that he was officially a liar) and then when RW took the bet and went further and put up Aus-data trends on his own blog site, not only could Mandas not supply the evidence to show him wrong, Mandas also failed to make any comments against the *basic form* of the Australian temperature trends that RW linked to. For Mandas - the seemingly self-appointed know-all of this site and the most pontificating self-righteous person I think I have ever had the sufferance to read - to be so cruelly exposed as a liar in this case (integrity of and in science being a drum he has beaten so relentlessly to date) has fatally undermined all others of you who are regularly on his side. Mandas now looks like a bad case of The Emperor's Clothes, and the rest of you have almost little to contribute that is meaningful to the science anyway. If Mandas lied so badly about having evidence just waiting in the wings, whoâs going to believe him on anything from now on? And the hypocrisy of all the other pro-AGW regulars (not you, but Chris S., adelady, Ian Forrester, etc) to call him out on his blatant lie, when theyâre so ready to call others a liar, is very telling. And sorry, but Iâm quite within my right to mock that polynomial curve-fitting and taking off jumpers because one feels a tad warm are not convincing arguments. Such statements are frankly ridiculous, and more honesty amongst you pro-AGW regulars here might call this stuff out and stop it undermining your correct position on the core tenets of the science. So, now that you've all fed the troll, and the troll is fat and feeling strong, how are you going to undo this?
By the way, don't be getting yourself into a flap about flaming assholes like me. Concentrate on your family matters and enjoy that experience. I'm only shooting and running here as a very limited experience. I check into this site not in the expectation of learning anything, but just to see how the interminable war of attrition between layman protagonists is progressing. I find this blog fascinating in that respect. Several of you have been arguing over a number of years from a position of almost total ignorance in subject matter. I find the associated âdebatesâ almost mesmerizing to watch.
If you want my advice, get Coby to start removing posts that do not have scientific merit (after this one of course!). It was perfectly reasonable to give RW a forum to post his ideas, but that should have been put to bed 1,150+ posts ago by reminding him that an Excel spreadsheet does not a scientific thesis make, and when he has the latter â documented and reviewed - then we can talk some more. The other thing Coby could try and do is get a guest posting by a climate scientist, which might help put-to-bed some of the long-running sagas that almost interminably bog down this blog.
Wow, what a boring post this is. Look at all those sentences, many of them stunning in their lack of creativity. I am hereby hoist by my own petard.

Interesting post, Mlax, and I agree with much of it. However, isn't there an element of self-contradiction? On the one hand you tell us that you would never post on the science because you don't know the topic well enough; yet on the other, you assure us that the science exists to hurl Richard into oblivion.

As you have pulled no punches in pointing out Chris S's failure to live up to his boasts, perhaps you won't mind if I ask you to provide the science that will, you assure us, send Richard packing.

Snowman!

I change a diaper in recovery, take time out for internet and look at my reward!

The science Mlax speaks of has been provided throughout the 1500+ posts he bemoans. You don't read, thus you don't know.

Answer to my question about your Mike Tyson?

And Richard: glad to hear you got a hold of JC (does she occupy a messianic station in your lexicon of "authorities" you deny appealing to?)

What does she think of your claims about CO2 having "no impact" on climate? Or your assumption that your "well done" finding has implications for the whole planet? Or how about your insistence that AGW theory says "only" CO2 affects temperature trends? Maybe you could get around to asking her about some of your previous citations on the science of CO2. A conversation with a real scientist (whatever her oddities with regard to the AGW controversy) would do you immeasurable good.

I think you would be truly shocked by what an extended discussion with her on these matters would reveal--that is,assuming you haven't already found this out and are just holding back on us.

Snowman,
First up (esp to Skip), sorry about the editing issue with my previous post. Something went awry with the cut and paste.

Self-contradiction? Yes, of course. I have set myself up for failure there, I agree. But you see I am so much not an expert on climate change science that I will *never* put in writing anything for or against the matter. However, that does not stop me holding a position - based on the journal articles that I have read - that I have been able to *understand* the expert opinions being espoused, and that on the basis of my understanding I contend that AGW is a real phenomenon. However, understanding an expert position is one thing. Being able to convincingly reproduce, reinterpret, or challenge that expert information is truly a different matter. I cannot do that so I will not do that. I believe that if a professional climate scientist or a professional statistician came onto this forum to discuss RW's thesis with him, that thesis would at least be shown to not pass necessary thresholds of scientific rigor, and might be shown to be flat-out wrong. That's what I believe. But do I *know* it for a fact? Of course not. I'm not a climate change expert or a statistician. *So I don't try to pretend to be one.* If Coby wants to let amateurs go in to bat for climate change science on his blog then thatâs up to him. But I see no value in amateurs debating with each other from a position of ignorance. And Iâve really got no time for people like Mandas, who think that they can speak with authority on matters they really know nothing about, and actually harm quality debate by exposing themselves as deeply hypocritical and deceitful, as evidenced by his failure to provide *any* critique of RWâs Australian temperature data trends. And remember, he said he not only would, but it would be so devastating as to make RW admit he was a denier/liar on *two* separate websites! Mandasâs own lie that he had such analysis has now only succeeded in emboldening RW, who now daily dives deeper into the abyss of non-expert speculation.
Hey, this is a laymanâs blog, as Skip pointed out. You guys power on and continue to get your jollies from your interactions if thatâs what floats your boats. Just donât expect me to take any of it with more than the tiniest pinch of salt. Regardless of the self-importance that certain posters attach to their pontifications, the vast majority of threads on this blog are only a small step removed from the mindless drivel that is available in the comments sections at Delingpole or the Daily Mail. And I take perverse pleasure in reading that crap, but what the hell â I never said I wasnât an asshole extraordinaire, did I? But at least Iâm willing to make my knowledge base and motivations for being here transparent, arenât I? If I were Coby, Iâd delete this whole useless post Iâve just written. But that would involve removing all my posts, as their only purpose is to expose Mandas as a liar, which although interesting and entertaining to me, has little to do with anything of import, since Mandas himself is an irrelevance as a climate change science authority. So, if Coby was to apply consistency in deleting my posts, heâd end up deleting >99% of all posts. And maybe that wouldnât be a bad thing. Maybe then some real experts might be encouraged to show up and make guest posts, and the amateur audience could politely ask some questions, or even just exclusively listen for a change.

Where does â100 curvesâ come from? You have never claimed to have 100 sites.

Run the video. There are some 100 slides, one for each year, which shows the temperature range distribution for each year (number of summer days at each TMax). Yes, I know what a normal distribution curve means. See http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/ where I have applied such analysis on a different topic.

So the slides show the frequency distribution of the 17 values of Tmax from the 17(?) sites you considered? Is there any reason why, with this small a sample, it should follow a normal distribution and would it tell you anything if it did? For your analysis, as a first approximation you need to consider the frequency distribution of the values of Tmax over the 100 years at a single site.

I checked out your link (not every page, just the ones that looked most likely) and, as I would have expected from the topic, not a single histogram showed anything even remotely like a normal distribution. I am now completely convinced that you have not the slightest idea of what is meant by a normal distribution (hint: in beginning stats texts it is sometimes called a bell curve).

Study how others have handled the problem (there are various possible procedures).

Yes, inventing data ex nihilo and passing it off as fact.

Support this outrageous claim with good evidence (not just by identifying honest mistakes) or issue a retraction.

Until then I will consider you to be just another crank and will not bother to respond to you.

Enjoy your delusions.

I hope you will forgive my bluntness, Mlax, but the essence of your remarks is that plenty of good evidence exists, but you are not going to tell us what it is.

And as for you, Skip, what are you doing here? I hope you are not leaving Mrs Skip to do all the work. Get back to those diapers.

But before you go, read Mlax's comments again. His complaint was that the pontificators on this sight (my exquisite good manners prevent me from naming names) have, through their dismal grasp of science and failure to land a knockout blow on Richard, actually made matters much worse.

I checked out your link (not every page, just the ones that looked most likely) and, as I would have expected from the topic, not a single histogram showed anything even remotely like a normal distribution. I am now completely convinced that you have not the slightest idea of what is meant by a normal distribution (hint: in beginning stats texts it is sometimes called a bell curve).

You are blind:

http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/industrial-wind-…

Look at the Winter Output graph here:http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/amaranth/

For your analysis, as a first approximation you need to consider the frequency distribution of the values of Tmax over the 100 years at a single site.

You are not being specific enough. One for each year (100 of them)? Or over all the years combined? For all months? Or just the summer months? What is that going to tell you about any trends?

Until then I will consider you to be just another crank and will not bother to respond to you.

Ok, how do they get historical temperature data from locations that have no data?

The nurse beat me to the diaper change while I was checking on the cats . . . .

One more time, Richard and Snowman:

Answers?

The demonstration of Richard's inability to answer simple direct questions is the ongoing "knockout blow" Snowman. Just because you keep talking doesn't mean you're successfully fighting.

Illiteracy has robbed you of this insight. Monomania has likewise robbed Richard.

And as for you Mlax: Where was your disgust for amateur commentary when Richard was telling us that AGW theory claims that only CO2 affects climate, or that you can extrapolate continental climate patterns by watching the Weather Channel ("Its really interesting.").

Quit trying to play civil discussant now that your dippy attempt at an ambush fell flat. If you *really* dislike amateurs pretending to be authorities, then start accosting the likes of Monckton and Watts (not to mention Richard). You're right: Neither of us is qualified to make authoritative statements about climate science, but we can argue about who the authorities are and what they actually say. This is where Richard repeatedly shoots himself in the foot. He doesn't read--not even his own supposed "authorities."

Just so you know that I'm not *only* a cold-hearted topical pugilist: The twins look great.

As appalled as I am at your posture toward AGW, Richard, I thank you for your decent thoughts on them.

Mandas wanted me to look at Perth Airport because in his view TMax was increasing. So I did, station '009021'

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/perth-au-1944-2010/

Oops, not so fast Mandas. There is NO INCREASE in TMax since 1980. You didn't say that the earliest date is 1944, not a long recordset. No way of knowing what the temps were in the 20's and 30's to see if recent is indeed "warmer".

Ummmmm, did I say Perth Airport's Tmax is increasing?

I think you better go back and read what I said again (for the first time?).

Come on Mandas, your whole reason for this exercise is because YOU said Au data showed increasing TMax. What was your reason for Perth then? Go find a station that shows your case (and that is a CONTINUOUS increase to 2010) or admit that I'm right, there is no increase in TMax.

755

Ok, how do they get historical temperature data from locations that have no data?

They don't. Automatically assuming the worst of people does you no credit.

Where's that apology for accusing people of making up data.

I checked out your link to your Amaranth data. It was one of the graphs I'd already looked at and dismissed as not being remotely close to showing a normal distribution. BTW, on some of those graphs the mean minus one SD would have given a negative value. Did that not give you the teeniest hint that perhaps the analysis was not the best you could have used?

Mandas, I added Northam, 75km from Perth, which has records from 1908. Sorry, but no increase in TMax

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/perth-au-1944-2010/

That's 6 locations so far where TMax is not increasing in AU.

So which stations do you have that have an increase in TMax? Or admit you have none.

".....Come on Mandas, your whole reason for this exercise is because YOU said Au data showed increasing TMax. What was your reason for Perth then?...."

I guess that's the difference between us then Dick. I am not cherry picking my data. And I am happy to report ALL my findings. Yes - I looked at Perth, but I also looked at a lot of other sites as well. SOME of the sites I looked at showed no increase in Tmax, but some did as well. But NONE of the sites I looked at showed declining Tmax. MOST of the sites I looked at showed an increasing number of hot days.

If I was going to draw ANY conclusion from that limited data, I would SUGGEST that climate change is highly regional, but that a lot more work needed to be done before I could be definitive. One thing I will be definitive about though - Australia is NOT a single climate regime, and it would be idiotic to try and extrapolate results from one region to another.

In the case of Perth, I was VERY clear about what the results were. That Tmax DOES NOT ALWAYS OCCUR IN SUMMER, and if you look at summer numbers alone you might miss important data.

I checked out your link to your Amaranth data. It was one of the graphs I'd already looked at and dismissed as not being remotely close to showing a normal distribution. BTW, on some of those graphs the mean minus one SD would have given a negative value. Did that not give you the teeniest hint that perhaps the analysis was not the best you could have used?

You really are out of your league with this arenât you. That data is output from wind turbines. The claim from the wind turbine industry is the Capacity Factor is the average output, which assumes the distribution of output per hour is normal distribution. It's not, that's the point of the site. BTW, the entire site's methodology was pasted by experts, including a physicist, who said everything I did was correct.

When a distribution curve has a very high skewness factor, where the apex is zero on the X-Axis, the lower SD will mathematically go below zero. It has no meaning.

You should stop before you get yourself deeper, you clearly do not understand what that site is showing.

MOST of the sites I looked at showed an increasing number of hot days

Name the locations. Why do you keep them secret? Worried I'd check them and you are wrong?

Sure, I'll check Feb for Perth, that's the hottest month, their "summer". You can see by the month distribution that the highest TMax, average TMax and lowest Tmax fall in that month.

And in Canada the highest TMax is ALWAYS in the summer months, june, july & aug. That is fact.

Not February - March!!!!!!!!
Tmax does not always occur in summer (gee, I thought I already said that!!)

Oh, and just to clarify.

I never said Tmax WASN'T increasing at Perth Airport either. I made one claim and one claim only - that Tmax does not always occur in summer.

I have now added each month. Notice some increase, some decrease, some flat. Understand that the climate doesn't recognize our artificial months, so it would be interesting to know how CO2 is discriminating different parts of the year over others.

Over all, Perth is not getting hotter. The highest temps regardless of which month, has been flat since 1980.

Again, without data prior to 1945, you cannot claim that the recent increase in those months is abnormal, and not part of cycles. Timeframe too short.

Not February - March!!!!!!!!
Tmax does not always occur in summer (gee, I thought I already said that!!)

the highest over all temps are in Feb, look at the month disribution curves. That highest is feb, not march.

TMax obviously occurs in every month, every day. But the highest of that data set is in Feb. The highest range of each year's TMax is Feb.

Doen't matter, I've done all the months.

".....Again, without data prior to 1945, you cannot claim that the recent increase in those months is abnormal, and not part of cycles......"

Garbage!

You have been called time and time again on your inability to understand basic statistics. Understanding trends etc is NOT just about gathering as much data as you can and sticking it into a spreadsheet â you have to understand WHAT data you need and WHY you are collecting it.

We are discussing and trying to understand whether increasing CO2 is causing the climate to change. We know that in the first half of the 20th century that the main driver of climate was the solar forcing â which everyone acknowledges was increasing . But since the 1950s it has been essentially flat. Therefore, if you want to include data from earlier period you would have to remove solar effects in order to observe CO2 (or any other effects for that matter).

The 1950s are significant for other reasons. For example, pror to the 1950s measurements of CO2 were based on unreliable or proxy means, and there is still some debate regarding the accuracy of the earlier data. But after that date most agree the figures are robust.

Therefore if you want to observe trends in temperature as a result of CO2 forcing, and be able to make any degree of robust comparisons, then you should use the best information available on a statistically significant trend period. That does NOT mean just gathering data from as far back as you can. It means gathering RELEVANT data. In the case of AGW, I am going to suggest to you that the mid twentieth century onwards is the most appropriate period.

If you want to make claims about âcyclesâ then you are going to have to state which cycles, what their periods are and what influences they have. Vague claims about unknown cycles or fractals are just that â vague claims totally unsupported by evidence. Which you keep claiming is all you care about â despite your machine gun like approach to cutting and pasting denialist dogma completely unrelated to your observations.

And of course, I know you are going to disagree, because it serves your interest to say otherwise. The longer you go back, the less likely there is to be any significant observable changes, and the more other factors such as TSI will have an influence and mask the changes attributable to GHG. Cherry picking is not just using shorter periods, it is about using data that suits your aims, while rejecting or burying data that doesnât.

And on the subject of cherry picking.......

"....Over all, Perth is not getting hotter. The highest temps regardless of which month, has been flat since 1980....."

Why did you say "since 1980"? To quote a fomer Australian politician of ill repute... "please explain".

In the case of AGW, I am going to suggest to you that the mid twentieth century onwards is the most appropriate period.

This shows your lack of understanding of basic principles of science. You MUST have a frame of reference, how else can you conclude if the past 50 years are unusual? If the temperatures were HIGHER in the 20's and 30's than they are today, then there is NO over all increase in temperatures. You are attempting to narrow the data range to show what you want, not what is.

Let me give you an example of why a frame of reference is important. Google: "out group" phylogeny

You will see the importance of having something to compare your data to.

factors such as TSI will have an influence and mask the changes attributable to GHG. Cherry picking is not just using shorter periods, it is about using data that suits your aims, while rejecting or burying data that doesnât.

That's funny since you are doing just that by shortening the range of years. So please explain how one can get a trend of more heatwaves unless one has a long enough recordset?

Besides, the data on that short range still does not support the premise.

BTW, I'm now doing other places on the planet. Currently Moscow. Want to take a guess on summers in Moscow? Want to bet if TMax and the number of hot days is increasing?

Why did you say "since 1980"? To quote a fomer Australian politician of ill repute... "please explain".

Look at the graphs. It's like saying "since 1980 I havn't taken a vacation." What needs explaining? Isn't that your very time frame?

Done Moscow. No trend in TMax or the number of hot day in a year. 2010 was a one-off, prediction: 2011 will be a very cool summer in Moscow.

http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/moscow-1949-2010/

I posted [a link] because it provides alternatives to what is presented by the faithful here. 1, that 2010 is the hottest year on record (right with record cold going on world wide) . . . . --Richard #232

It won't be the warmest on record, not even close....." --Richard Old GAS thread #264

The [Moscow] summer of 2010 was the hottest year on record. Is this an indication of global warming, or a one-off event likely not to repeated for a long time to come[?] . . .Take 2010 out and the trend is flat, no over all increase in TMax. 2011 will very likely reset that increasing slope back to flat. #Richard from his blog

Richard, two questions:

1. Can I infer all of Russia from Moscow? If not, why not?

2. Is Moscow's record Tmax even possible under your theory--such as it is?

Skip, Russia has some 2700 stations. Will take a while to get through them all. So what I'm doing is picking locations around Moscow, moving out each checking to see if there is a local area that this occured in.

There was a post in WUWT that showed Sibera in 2010 was much colder than normal. I can check that too.

Since the null hypothesis is that all this is normal variation, then yes, this would be just part of that. The problem is we have no records prior to know if 2010 was hottest *ever*. All we know is it happened to be a one-off (if you look at the graph you will see Sept was below the lower SD. I'm going to check Moscow's low temps in the winter to see what that did.

Butterflies in the UK and warming:

" Menendez et al. (2006) provided what they call "the first assessment, at a geographical scale, of how species richness has changed in response to climate change," concentrating on British butterflies. This they did by testing "whether average species richness of resident British butterfly species has increased in recent decades, whether these changes are as great as would be expected given the amount of warming that has taken place, and whether the composition of butterfly communities is changing towards a dominance by generalist species." By these means they determined that "average species richness of the British butterfly fauna at 20 x 20 km grid resolution has increased since 1970-82, during a period when climate warming would lead us to expect increases." They also found, as expected, that "southerly habitat generalists increased more than specialists," which require a specific type of habitat that is sometimes difficult for them to find, especially in the modern world where habitat destruction is commonplace. In addition, they were able to determine that observed species richness increases lagged behind those expected on the basis of climate change."

http://www.co2science.org/subject/e/summaries/butterfliesext.php

âThe Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earthâs Biosphere?,â concluded that claims of mass extinctions arising out of climate change are unsupported by facts.1 The extinction hypothesis ignored the fact that CO2 enrichment tends to offset the negative effects of rising temperatures on vegetation.

Reviewed here: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/higher-co2-more-global-warming…

Also this:

In the case of plant life, increasing the amount of CO2 will induce changes that make them better adapted to warmer conditions. Indeed, more CO2 allows them to grow better at almost all temperatures, especially at higher temperatures. And so, elevated CO2 content improves the ability of plants to resist heat stress and also raises the optimum temperature for growth.

Brilliant.

When Southeast Asia starves and Africa crisps, assuming I'm still alive I shall take great solace in the prosperity and genetic diversity of butterflies.

And . . . The Marshall Institute and CO2Science versus *Nature* . . . it says it all.

Ah, Skip, back I see - and sober for once, I am glad to note.

Glad you're happy to hear from me.

No doubt mortality must come as a great relief to you after an evening of trembling in the greatness of the Watts Shaman.

What agenda did he set for you today?

Actually, Skip, if these doomsday scenarios of yours come to pass you may have to cross the border and take refuge in the great white north. But it won't be a problem: I am sure Richard will be glad to put you up.

#775 Menendez et al:

"Our results imply that it may be decades or centuries before the species richness and composition of biological communities adjusts to the current climate."

The last line of the abstract.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560312/

Also worth reading is: Compounded effects of climate change and habitat alteration shift patterns of butterfly diversity. Forister et al (2010) PNAS 107 pp2088-2092
Abstract
Climate change and habitat destruction have been linked to global declines in vertebrate biodiversity, including mammals, amphibians, birds, and fishes. However, invertebrates make up the vast majority of global species richness, and the combined effects of climate change and land use on invertebrates remain poorly understood. Here we present 35 years of data on 159 species of butterflies from 10 sites along an elevational gradient spanning 0-2,775 m in a biodiversity hotspot, the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Northern California. Species richness has declined at half of the sites, with the most severe reductions at the lowest elevations, where habitat destruction is greatest. At higher elevations, we observed clear upward shifts in the elevational ranges of species, consistent with the influence of global warming. Taken together, these long-term data reveal the interacting negative effects of human-induced changes on both the climate and habitat available to butterfly species in California.

I'll bet CO2 science haven't got to that one yet...

Nothing from Richard since the most recent embarrassment.

I checked his blog and as far as I can tell 1/25 was the most recent post.

Appalled as I am by his postures I hope the poor bastard is all right.

Maybe he's just waiting and hoping that he might hear some affirmation from Judith.

Hey skip

Have you notiiced that crakar returns at the same time as Dick disappears? Spooky huh?

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

eeeewwwwwwww.

For my own amusement I wanted to test the applicability of Ian Forrester's crank criteria link to the case of Richard.

Here is what I found:

Step one: Develop a wacky idea:

Oh yeah. Check:

Richard's idea is something like this:

Select southern Canadian station data show that summer Tmax has held flat or even declined in the past 100 years. Any questions about the statistical significance of this are immaterial (Daughter-in-law, 2010). Winters have become warmer (which is a really, really good thing by the way). Because North America is a unitary "climate regime" (watch the Weather Channel; its really interesting), the same must be true of the entire continent. Perth shows the same trend so Australia is checked off. (Moscow data kind of scotch the theory but don't let the AGW extremists cherry pick one year/place.) This apparent convergence of winter and summer temps cannot indefinitely continue. This means AGW is "falisified" and "dead in the water". Its natural variation and cycles. Only AGW believers and fanatics buy the Coolaid from the likes of the socialist Hansen.

Don't follow my logic? Well, I'll have you know that even Judith Curry says my analysis is "well done." What more need be said? A retired fireman with a pacing parrot as collaborator has taken down AGW. Tough tits, warmists.

Remember that really important people with really important ideas don't have time for grammar or spelling.

Check.

I have rubbed this in somewhat viciously in the past but Richard cannot routinely articulate himself at higher than a middle school level of grammar and spelling. Its just the truth.

if you must cite anything, either cite your own name or work, or that of another crank

Check and check.

Number of times Richard has cited his own blog on this thread alone: 11

Number of times Richard has cited Anthony Watts on this thread alone: 7

It's also important during your research of this new idea, never to be worried about preserving the original intent of other authors you quote or cite.

Gigantic Check painted in florescent ink.

See previous posts when Richard tried to cite Laken and Curry and made a hash of it, but a microcosm of this phenomenon is captured by this:

The forcing on the system by CO2 and the climate's response to CO2 levels is the same thing. Fact is, we DO NOT know how much influence CO2 has on the climate, Schwartz is clear on that, including stating the IPCC is over stating CO2's forcing. -- Richard on Schwartz

we have a pretty good handle on CO2 forcing (though in my judgment not as good as ipcc says we do); ditto other llghgs. and a pretty good handle on rate of heating of planet. so the big trade off is aerosol forcing vs climate sensy. -- Schwartz in his email to Richard

Step two: Disseminate your idea . . . Leave comments in others blogs that describe how you have solved this big problem, where everyone else has failed . . .

Check.

Coby encountered Richard on Curry's blog (Richard reads it "every day", but still doesn't know/accept her position on atmospheric CO2). His subsequent emergence here a couple of months ago on the old GAS thread has been his moment in the sun outside his own blog.

Ideally, get a minion to constantly extol your virtues and genius.

Check.

Enter Snowman:

. . . slowly, the terrible truth is dawning on them: they have got into the ring with Mike Tyson, and you can smell their fear. --Snowman, GAS continued thread #100

Step three: (Not) Responding to Criticism: All you have to do is ignore anything that contradicts your theory . . .

Check by overwhelming circumstantial evidence, although you cannot technically prove the negative.

Since Richard clearly does not even thoroughly read the sources he believes supports his position, it strains reason to believe he reads anything overtly hostile to it.

And we are still waiting on Richard's enlightening exchanges with Curry and Tsonis et al . . . .

. . . exhaust them with dumps of links or citations, repeat

Check. Check. Check.

Anyone can go over the GAS threads or The Other Beck and see this, but a recent example is the Swanson and Tsonis link: Even though he already cited it once before (#198), misquoted it, misunderstood it, and made a complete spectacle of himself by not even realizing he had done so yet fighting it to the death before finally conceding, Richard just linked us the Swanson et article *again* in #480. I wonder if he even realizes it?

The author must have had Wakefield in mind when he wrote the article.

Either that or these model attributes of crankiness are superbly robust.

This is apparently the only entry on all of Sb where SCIRP / Scientific Research Publishing has been discussed. I've got a post up on them today.

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2012/04/scam_publisher_fools_s…